[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Issue]
[Pages 11904-12090]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 11904]]
SENATE--Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Jon Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
``God of our fathers, whose almighty hand leads forth in beauty, all
the starry band of shining worlds and splendor through the skies, our
grateful songs before Your throne arise.''
Lord, give the Members of this body Your special grace. The
responsibility they face is difficult and daunting. Let Your light and
truth infuse this place today, and may our lawmakers depend completely
upon Your transcendent wisdom. Use them as children of light and heirs
of Your everlasting inheritance. May their lives ever praise Your
wonderful and Holy Name. In the Name of Him who is perfect justice and
unlimited compassion. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Jon Tester led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Jon Tester, a Senator from the State of Montana, to perform
the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. TESTER thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and those of Senator
McConnell, if he chooses to make some, the Senate will resume
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First
Energy Act. There will then be 1 hour for debate prior to a series of 5
rollcall votes. The first vote in the series will be a cloture vote on
the motion to proceed to the Consumer-First Energy Act. If cloture is
not invoked on the motion to proceed, the Senate will proceed to a
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 6049, the Renewable
Energy and Job Creation Act. Following that vote, or votes, there will
be up to 10 minutes for debate under the control of Senators Leahy and
Specter prior to a series of up to three rollcall votes on the
confirmation of three district court judges.
Order of Procedure
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time Senator
McConnell and I use not be charged against the 1 hour precloture time
so that there will be a full hour of debate on the issue relating to
gas prices.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last Friday, I spoke of the high energy
prices--I have done that on a number of occasions recently--and the
need for the Senate to pass the Consumer-First Energy Act. That will be
the first vote we will have.
When I came to the Senate floor Friday, we had already had a very
difficult day. We got up and saw in the newspaper that day that the
market had crashed and gas prices were spiraling up to $132 a barrel.
There were other things that were not good from an economic
perspective. I did not have any idea that the price of oil would go up
to almost $140 a barrel. Actually, it did that during the remarks I was
making.
The massive spike in oil prices we saw on Friday and the
corresponding 400-point drop in the Dow only compounded the crisis that
has been growing for months and even years. When President Bush took
office, a barrel of oil cost $32 and a gallon of gasoline cost less
than $1.50. Of course, now, the average price in our country is more
than $4 a gallon, for the first time in the history of our country.
The President took us to war--a war of choice--and Vice President
Cheney invited oil executives to the White House to secretly write our
national energy legislation. It was secret, so people went to court--it
went all the way to the Supreme Court--to try to find out whom he met
with, what he talked about, and what arrangements he made with the big
oil companies. He was able to keep it secret. It is still secret. All
we know is that the oil companies made $250 billion in net profit last
year. So we have a pretty good idea what went on in the White House.
They never asked the oil executives, obviously, to build new refineries
or to invest in clean, renewable alternative fuels. They apparently
failed to consider the national security implications of our addiction
to oil and never asked the oil companies to invest in clean energy.
You can take all the oil in the world--100 percent of it--and you can
add in ANWR and all of the offshore we have in America today, and we
have less than 3 percent of the oil in the world. We cannot produce our
way out of the problems we have. Can we do more with production? Of
course. That is the reason Democrats led the charge last year to bring
into fruition more drilling off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi.
We know we have to do something to wean ourselves from the 21 million
barrels of oil we use every day--and 65 percent of that we import. But
the Bush administration has failed to address these concerns. Sadly,
the Republican Members of Congress stood by his side cheering him on
and cheering on the oil companies to make more money.
The American people are suffering the consequences of the Bush
administration's recklessness. As we speak, our airlines are on the
verge of bankruptcy. What they have made a decision on last week--even
though the airplanes were filled with passengers--is they have cut 20
percent of the flights around the country. Why? Because with every
airplane load of passengers they haul, they lose money. They want to
have airplanes that use less fuel, so even though the airlines are
filled with passengers, they are saying they are losing more money at
that airline that is going to Missoula, MT, or Kansas City, and
therefore they are going to stop the flight--even though it is full--
because that airline used more fuel than one taking somebody the same
distance to someplace else. That sounds pretty crazy, but the airline
industry is on the verge of not being able to continue. We cannot
compete at this stage with the European airline industry. Here, we pay
$1.40 for a gallon of aviation fuel; they pay 75 to 80 cents there. We
cannot compete. The cost of fuel is exceeding half of the cost of an
airline, and they simply cannot make it.
[[Page 11905]]
It wasn't until Democrats won the majority that we finally were able
to pass an energy bill last year that did some things. For the first
time in 30 years, we increased the fuel economy standards and did a
little bit to promote clean, American-made alternative fuels. We
continued offering responsible solutions to reverse the energy crisis--
and there is an energy crisis.
All this time, out there every day, we have the Sun shining, the wind
blowing, and steam coming from the Earth, and we are doing nothing to
capture that--virtually nothing. Why? Because we cannot get our
Republican colleagues to join us in passing tax incentives to allow the
great entrepreneurial spirit of America to invest in renewable fuels.
We want to reverse the energy crisis. Yet our Republican colleagues
inexplicably are refusing to work with us and prefer to simply continue
to feed our addiction to oil. Some Republicans propose drilling in
ANWR, but experts agree that we cannot drill our way out of this
crisis. The ANWR thing won't pass. It has been decided that is not
something we need to do.
Last week, Republicans took to the floor and talked about high gas
prices. We got their memo saying they want this global warming thing to
be ``global warming and gas prices.'' When they had the chance to vote
on that, they walked away from it. Mr. President, they have the
opportunity today to vote to bring us to the point where we can start
legislating on gas prices. I hope their rhetoric last week is an
indication that they are going to allow us to proceed.
This morning, we will vote to invoke cloture so we can move to pass
the Consumer-First Energy Act. They have blocked this responsible
legislation, or something similar to it, in the past. Maybe this time
it will be different.
Observers have said that now that gas is over $4 per gallon, it might
be a tipping point for the American people. I hope it will be a tipping
point for the Republicans in the Senate. We have SUVs that are now not
being bought, which are manufactured by our manufacturers. We have
hybrids coming into being, and that is good. Some people are abandoning
their SUVs and cars--because they have no alternative--for public
transportation. In States such as Montana or Nevada, where you have
large areas of rural roads, people have to drive. There is no public
transportation available. So public transportation is not an option for
everybody, especially Americans living in rural areas and commuting
long distances--areas not served by public transportation. No matter
where we live or what our transportation options are, we all deserve a
cleaner, safer, more affordable future.
Following the lead of the American people, perhaps Republican
Senators have reached their own tipping point and are now ready to
embrace change with us. We hope so. The choice today is simple: They
can continue to stand with the Bush-Cheney administration and the
modern-day oil barons or they can join us on the side of the struggling
American families who deserve better.
I urge all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to support
allowing us to proceed on this legislation. This is responsible
legislation. We will end billions of dollars of tax breaks for these
huge oil companies and executives who have been hauling in record
salaries while the profits of the companies are skyrocketing. Second,
we force the oil companies in this legislation to do their part by
investing some of their profits in clean, affordable alternative
energy. We protect the American people from price gouging. We stand up
to OPEC and countries that are colluding together to keep oil prices
high. We look at these margins. Many people believe the high cost of
oil is sheer speculation.
This legislation, I acknowledge, is not a silver bullet that will
solve the energy crisis, but it will take a nip out of it. After 7\1/2\
years of the Bush-Cheney energy policy, there are no quick fixes. The
road ahead won't be easy. This is a start to help lower prices and to
help working families make ends meet. It is one small step on a long
and uphill road to a cleaner, more affordable energy future and to
restoring the affordability of the American dream to families all over
our country.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
____________________
WINDFALL PROFITS TAX
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, over the weekend, as we all know, the
average U.S. gas prices hit an alltime high of more than $4 a gallon. I
only point this out because it seems our friends on the other side
aren't aware of it. In the middle of what some are calling the biggest
energy shock in a generation, they seem baffled. Faced with a national
outrage over gas prices, they propose as a solution, of all things, a
windfall profits tax. If the idea had any merit at all, Republicans
would consider it. But, of course, it doesn't.
We know from experience that Jimmy Carter tried a tax hike in 1980,
and it was a miserable failure.
The Congressional Research Service says its only effect--its only
effect--was to depress domestic production, thus significantly
increasing our reliance on foreign oil and, in the end, less domestic
production led to significantly less revenue from the tax that was
expected. The same thing, of course, would happen again.
The biggest hit would not be to the energy companies, it would be to
the American consumer who now dreads pulling his or her car into the
gas station. Hitting the gas companies might make for good campaign
literature or evening news clips, but it will not address the problem.
This bill is not a serious response to high gas prices. It is just a
gimmick. Don't take my word for it. The Democrats themselves said as
much when their leadership proposed this sham solution last month.
Americans have lost patience with Democratic inaction on gas prices.
Americans understand supply and demand. They know the only way to drive
prices down is to drive production up at home by reducing demand
through the kind of sensible action we took last year on fuel
efficiency and renewable fuels. With gas now at $4 a gallon, recent
polls show that an increasing number of Americans are calling on us to
exercise the option of exploring for energy at home.
What is the Democratic response to all this? Last week, the majority
proposed a climate change tax that would have raised gas prices $1.40 a
gallon higher than they already are. They are hoping the idea of going
after energy companies will create the illusion of action, after a week
in which they themselves fought for a bill that would make the problem
worse. What a political charade.
This bill is not a serious approach to lowering gas prices. Our
friends proposed the same one last month. It went nowhere. They didn't
even bring it up because their own committee chairman opposed it. The
Democratic chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the
junior Senator from New Mexico, called the windfall profits tax
``arbitrary.'' The senior Senator from New York cautioned that another
key provision of the bill would drive jobs overseas.
If the Democrats themselves don't like the bill and oppose its
provisions, why are they reviving it?
Democrats will claim this bill will bring gas prices down, but in
doing so they are counting on Americans to forget a basic law of
economics: raising taxes on those who produce something leads to an
increase in the price of products they sell. This was true in Adam
Smith's pin factory. It is true for energy companies today. More taxes
mean higher prices.
The rational response to high gas prices is to propose a policy that
would actually lower them, and that is what Republicans have done. Last
month, we proposed a bill that would allow us to access the 14 billion
barrels of known recoverable oil on the Outer Continental Shelf in an
environmentally sensitive way. We have also tried to open the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge for very limited and safe exploration. We have
been blocked by our friends on the other side at every turn.
When Bill Clinton first vetoed the idea in 1995, the price at the
pump was
[[Page 11906]]
$1.06 a gallon. Gas costs nearly four times as much as it did then. How
high does it have to go before our friends on the other side allow
limited and environmentally sensitive exploration of these giant U.S.
reserves? Evidently, $4 a gallon isn't high enough for them.
So, Mr. President, we have a better plan for addressing gas prices,
one that respects the laws of supply and demand. In addition to the two
provisions I already mentioned, our bill mandates that billions of
coal-derived fuels be produced through clean coal technologies as a way
of further reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil.
Our bill repeals the 1-year moratorium on oil shale production in
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, and it would accelerate the construction
of refineries in the United States, as well as development of advanced
batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Republicans are determined to lower gas prices the only way we can
and strengthen our energy security for the long term--by increasing
supply. We have tried to do so repeatedly, and every time we have tried
we have been blocked by our friends on the other side.
Just last month, 48 Democrats blocked consideration of our energy
supply bill. Last week, they blocked consideration of an amendment I
sponsored that would have prevented the increase in gas taxes that the
Boxer climate tax bill would have caused. Now, 2 days after we have
seen the highest recorded gas price in history, they are proposing an
idea that has already failed once and which will do nothing to ease the
pain Americans are feeling at the pump.
Our friends on the other side have no serious plan to address gas
prices. They have demonstrated this in the past, and they are
demonstrating it today.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal highlighted the kind of situation
that has become typical over the past several months. In a story about
high gas prices, the Journal quoted a self-employed handy man in Dallas
who is paying twice as much money to fill his tank than he did a few
years ago. This is what he had to say:
I feel like I am being held at knifepoint. If they charge
$10 a gallon, I'm going to pay it.
It is time we got serious about helping guys such as this. It is time
we did something about supply to go along with our previous efforts to
affect demand. But as long as our friends on the other side refuse, we
will get nowhere in this debate, and that is why gas prices have gone
up $1.71 since the Democrats took over Congress.
I will vote against proceeding to this totally irresponsible bill and
advise my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume the motion to proceed to S. 3044, which the clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to S. 3044, 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.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as I understand it, there is 1 hour
divided equally.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 40 minutes divided
equally.
Mr. SCHUMER. And the addition of leader time. I ask that I be given
7\1/2\ minutes of our time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Hutchison be the leadoff speaker and she be allowed 7 minutes, and that
I follow her with 15 minutes, and then we will see where it goes from
there.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we all know that gas prices and the high
price of oil and all oil products is the No. 1 issue in America.
Everywhere we go--Legion halls, parades, weddings--this is all people
bring up, and they demand action.
Today, we in the Democratic majority are stepping to the plate with
two comprehensive bills--one dealing immediately with the issue of gas
prices and the oil companies and the speculation in the market and the
second dealing with changing our tax policies so that we encourage
alternative fuels. We are stepping to the plate because we know the
problem America faces: $4-a-gallon gasoline. That is 267 percent higher
than it was when President Bush took office in 2001. And we cannot pass
any legislation?
We want to debate this legislation now. We have our ideas. The other
side has its ideas. But we wish to move forward and debate the issue
and finally get something done, and the other side, the minority leader
said vote no. He is telling the American people that he and his party
want to do nothing. They don't even want to debate it. That is an
incredible statement at a time when America is crying out for action.
The bottom line is, we have had a White House, we have had a
Republican minority that has taken zero proactive steps to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil for 7 years. If it wasn't for this new
Democratic Congress to pass along an overdue small increase in fuel
efficiency standards, President Bush would leave the White House with a
record he would consider spotless, committing no sins against big oil
or against OPEC.
We on this side are not afraid to go after big oil when they are not
doing the right thing, and we are not afraid to go after OPEC because
they are a cartel that squeezes us. We are not afraid to do some
strong, tough things that will, some in the short run and some in the
longer run, bring down the price, the all-too-high price of gasoline.
We are hurting as a country. We are hurting individually as
Americans. We are hurting as an economy, as people do not have the
ability to spend on other things. We are hurting in our foreign policy
as every day we send over $1 billion to people we do not like, such as
leaders of Iran, Venezuela, and other places. And we are hurting as a
globe as we continue to send carbon dioxide into the air. And the other
side says: Do nothing. Don't even debate the issue.
I have heard some people talk about some things on that side. What
about ANWR, Alaskan oil, which was defeated in a bipartisan way a while
ago? We will debate ANWR. Nobody thinks it is going to do anything for
7 years. I, for one, and many of us on this side supported drilling in
the east gulf. It is beginning to happen because it would produce more
oil and gas more quickly and do something about the price.
So we are not against any domestic oil production or exploration or
gas production or exploration if it is going to make some sense. But we
cannot drill our way out of the problem. If we do not do conservation,
if we do not do alternative energy, and if we do not tell the big oil
companies they can no longer run energy policy in America, we will not
succeed; plain and simple. We are finally telling them.
There are many provisions in this bill, but there are four major
provisions. One goes after OPEC, one goes after speculation, but the
one that I helped write, along with the chairman of the Finance
Committee, goes after the windfall profits of oil companies. They are
making record profits, and we say take some of those record profits and
require them to be placed into alternative energy.
When the head of ExxonMobil came before the Judiciary Committee a
couple of years ago, he said he didn't believe in alternative energy.
Well, most
[[Page 11907]]
Americans do. And unlike my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
we don't believe ExxonMobil should dictate our energy policy. They are
doing great, but we, the American people, are not.
If you want to get immediate production, do something about Saudi
Arabia. They could in a minute increase supply by 1 million, 2 million
barrels a day. This is not Alaska. A lot of people on the far right are
saying: How can Schumer say increase Saudi production when he is not
for Alaska production? Hello. One would pump oil into the system
immediately and do something immediately if we could force the Saudis
to do it. Some of us advocate not giving them arms until they do. One
would take 7 years and, by many estimates, not do much to change the
price because it is so long into the future.
It is appalling. I am profoundly surprised by the other side seeking
to block this bill. I ask my colleagues to support it.
Might I ask the Chair how much time I have?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 10 seconds.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. The windfall profits tax part of this bill, which I
helped write, is a different windfall profits tax. It says when the
level of profitability is very high, take that money and require that
it be used for alternative energy. That is not too much to ask of
ExxonMobil or of Chevron, Texaco, or any of these newly merged oil
firms. It will not do all the things my colleague from Kentucky said
but instead will force the oil companies that are not sacrosanct to
start doing something to help get us out of this mess instead of just
profiting from it.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the bill before us is, pure and
simple, a pathetic attempt to even call itself an energy plan. The
American people are looking for leadership from the Congress. They are
looking for something that will help small businesses not be eaten up
with energy costs, the American family not be eaten up with the cost of
gasoline at the pump, and what do they get in response? They get a bill
that does not produce one ounce of energy. Not one ounce.
This bill does three things: It enacts a windfall profits tax, it
suggests that we sue OPEC, and it forms a commission to investigate
price gouging. What the American people are looking for is lower
gasoline prices at the pump and lower electricity costs in their small
businesses.
The Republican plan that was put forward so well by Senator Domenici,
the ranking member of the Energy Committee, is a balanced plan that
will produce results. What it does is what we have done in America for
the last 200 years when we had a problem and that is use our ingenuity,
use our natural resources, use our creativity, and come together to
meet and beat our problems. That is what the Domenici plan does.
We have passed legislation that gives incentives for renewable
energy--wind energy and solar power--and those are great things. They
are small, but they are great things. We wish to continue that. We wish
to promote conservation, which we have done in past Energy bills. We
wish to also expand nuclear power. We haven't had a nuclear powerplant
open in this country in 25 years. So the Energy bill we passed under
Senator Domenici's leadership does have incentives for investment in
nuclear power because we know it can be done clean, it can be done
efficiently, and it will bring down the cost of electricity.
We have expansion of refineries in the bill that was passed 2 years
ago, again under the leadership of Senator Domenici. We have to have
expanded refineries because the problem in this country today is we
don't have enough supply. Our refineries are running at full capacity,
but we have not had expansion of our refineries because the regulatory
environment has kept any sound management and business plan from being
operative for an expanded facility. But we did pass legislation to
expand facilities, again with environmental safeguards to do it right
and expand the amount of energy we would have in our country.
Our plan also creates a State option, so States will have the ability
to explore off their Outer Continental Shelf and get a reward for it,
get a royalty. That could produce as much as we import from Venezuela,
and that is a modest suggestion of what we might be able to get. It
could be much more.
ANWR. Senator Reid said: Forget ANWR, we are not going to do that. It
is not going to pass here. Well, no, it is not going to pass. As long
as we have no leadership from the majority in the Senate, it would not
pass. But it did pass. It did pass in 1995. If President Clinton hadn't
vetoed it, we would be pumping almost the same amount of oil that we
import from Saudi Arabia every day, and we would not have $4-a-gallon
gasoline at the pump for hard-working Americans. So it can pass with
leadership.
We are talking about ANWR. In an area the size of the State of South
Carolina, the area that would be drilled is 2,000 acres, the size of
Washington National Airport. It is a grassy plain. It gets to 70
degrees below zero in the wintertime. It is not part of the beautiful,
pristine wilderness of ANWR. Yet it could bring gasoline prices down at
the pump. Oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming. We have a balanced
approach that will produce energy.
What does the bill before us do today? Well, let us talk about the
windfall profits tax. In 1980, Congress passed one. What happened? It
increased imports, it increased our reliance on foreign oil for our
energy needs, and it made America more reliant on foreign sources of
energy for our country. That is wrong for our national security, and it
is wrong for our economy. It exported jobs overseas. It was such an
abject failure that Congress repealed it. Why would we be going
backward to something that has been proven to take jobs from America
and increase our dependence on foreign sources?
OPEC. They say OPEC should be increasing its output. This is
ludicrous. First, it ignores that OPEC could retaliate; that they are
not going to abide by American law. At the same time the Democrats are
saying we should sue OPEC for not producing more, they do not pass
anything that would produce more of our own energy in our own country.
Does anyone think OPEC is going to think that is a credible position
for the Congress to take? Yet that is the position that is in the bill
before us today.
It is almost laughable that every proposal we put forward that would
increase our output is defeated by Congress. Yet they want to sue OPEC
for not increasing their supply. You cannot have it both ways. We don't
want to drill here, but we want to drill there. It is the old ``you do
it, we will talk about it'' mentality that will not work.
What about forming another commission to investigate price gouging?
We have had commissions on price gouging, and they have turned up
nothing. This is a bad bill. We should reject it, and we should look
for leadership, bipartisan leadership, to solve this problem with our
ingenuity.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes
from the Democratic side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, do we need a windfall profits tax? You
bet we do. The American people are sick and tired of paying $4 for a
gallon of gas. In the Northeast, we are worried about how people are
going to stay warm in the winter, while at the same time ExxonMobil has
made more profits than any company in the history of the world for the
past 2 consecutive years, making $42 billion last year alone.
But ExxonMobil is not alone. In the first quarter of this year, BP
announced a 63-percent increase in their profits. Shell's first-quarter
profits
[[Page 11908]]
jumped by 25 percent, to over $9 billion, and ConocoPhillips' profits
increased by over 16 percent in the first quarter, to over $4 billion.
As a matter of fact, the five largest oil companies in this country
have made over $600 billion in profits since George W. Bush has been
President. Do we need a windfall profits tax? You bet we do.
Let me say a word about what some of these oil companies are doing
with these outrageous profits. In 2005, Lee Raymond, the former CEO of
ExxonMobil, received a total retirement package of at least $398
million. Yes, you heard that right, $398 million in a retirement
package for the former CEO of ExxonMobil. But he is not alone. Let us
not just pick on ExxonMobil. In 2006, Ray Irani, the CEO of Occidental
Petroleum, received over $400 million in total compensation. Oh, yes,
we don't need to do a windfall profits tax. These guys are just
investing their money ever so significantly.
The situation is so absurd and the greed is so outrageous that oil
company executives are not only giving themselves huge compensation
packages in their lifetimes, but they have created a situation, if you
can believe it, where they have carved out huge corporate payouts to
their heirs if they die in office. I am not making this up. According
to the Wall Street Journal, the family of Ray Irani, the CEO of
Occidental Petroleum, will get over $115 million if he dies while he is
the CEO. The family of the CEO of Neighbors Industries, another oil
company, will receive $288 million if he dies while he is the CEO.
If this were not so pathetic, if so many people all over our country
were not hurting, it would be funny. But it is not funny, it is tragic,
and we have to deal with this reality. Let me be clear, however. I
believe oil companies should be allowed to make a reasonable profit,
but they should not be allowed to rip off the American people at the
gas pump, and that is why we need to pass a windfall profits tax, which
is included in this legislation.
We should understand that a windfall profits tax alone is not going
to solve all our problems. Since 1988, the oil and gas industry has
spent over $616 million on lobbying, and since 1990, they have made
over $213 million in campaign contributions. In other words, if this
Congress is going to stand up to the oil companies, it is going to take
a lot of courage. These people have enormous power, and they have spent
an enormous amount of money on lobbying and campaign contributions. But
I think we owe it to the American people to represent their interests
rather than just the interests of big money.
Imposing a windfall profits tax is not the only thing we should be
doing. We must address the growing reality that Wall Street investment
banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and JPMorgan Chase, and
many hedge fund companies as well, are driving up the price of oil in
the unregulated energy futures market. There are estimates that 25 to
50 percent of the $134-a-barrel cost of oil is attributable not to
supply and demand, not to the cost of production, not to the decline in
the dollar but to the unregulated speculation which is currently taking
place on oil futures. That is an issue we must address as well, and
this legislation begins to do that.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Parliamentary inquiry: How much time
remains and who has time before the vote?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has secured 15 minutes
for his own use, which would consume all the minority's time at this
point, except for the leader's balance of that time.
Mr. DOMENICI. So that means I would use the remaining time, and there
would be no time for anyone else before the first vote?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority still has 7 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. That was my question. I didn't pose it right.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Plus, the majority leader or his
designee's time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes and see how it
works out. The Senator from Pennsylvania wanted some of my time. I
don't know if I have enough to give him, but I will try, and I thank
him for coming down so early in the morning.
First of all, let me say to my fellow Senators but most of all to the
American people that the Senate has a bill before us today we will call
the Reid bill, named after the majority leader, and I think it deserves
a simple little nickname. It should be the Democratic Party's ``No
Energy Energy bill.'' It doesn't produce one ounce of energy. Clearly,
the American people are looking to us to see how we can suggest that
the price of oil might be stabilized or brought down.
We are told by most experts we are going to be using crude oil for 30
or 40 years to come, and we call that the bridge, the bridge between
now and the future, where we are going to have to use crude oil. If we
are going to have to use crude oil, then America should look to itself
and see where and how can we produce oil that belongs to us so this
bridge, this 30 or 40 years when we are going to have to use crude oil
to get by, that we will have as much of ours as possible.
It is a shame the majority party in the Senate is not looking to
American resources, does not have a bill, will not let us vote on a
bill, will not let us amend a bill that would produce more energy from
the coastal waters off the shores of the United States, upon which we
have put a moratorium. That moratorium says we cannot drill. Everybody
knows there are literally billions of barrels of oil that belong to us.
We could do whatever we would like. We could say 50 miles out is where
we start, so it will harm no one, but let's open it and explore for
American oil where there is an abundance.
In addition, let's go ahead and convert coal to crude oil, coal to
diesel. We know how to do that. Let's get on with it so we can send the
right signal to the world.
Let's take the moratorium off oil shale and get on with a 5- or 10-
year program to produce oil from those properties that belong to
Americans that are laden with oil and are in the States of Colorado,
Utah, and Wyoming.
That is what we are looking for, not a bill that attempts to levy a
windfall profits tax which everybody associated with that tax--
including those who helped put it on during the regime of President
Carter--now comes over and joins us, saying: Don't do that. It will do
nothing but raise the price of crude oil.
Why do we want to pass a tax increasing the cost of crude oil when
the American people are asking us to do the opposite? The majority here
in the Senate believes the major oil companies--there are not very many
left that are American oil companies. There are just a few of them
left, and all the rest of the oil is owned by countries--not companies,
by countries. They own it. We have five or six American companies. We
ought to be grateful we have them. They are the only ones out there
capable of competing with these countries to get oil and produce more.
Yet the Democrats would like to make life onerous for those companies,
would like to make it harder for them to produce oil, and try to let
the American people think that if we tax them enough, somehow or
another that will produce more oil.
From my standpoint, this is a very simple debate. The Democrats have
no energy bill before us, in terms of producing energy. So they have a
``no energy'' bill. We ought to say we don't want to debate that
because it doesn't amount to anything. Then the House sent us a bill
that imposes taxes. That is all it is. They impose taxes in order to
put on a kind of energy stimulus for wind and the like. They want to
tax in order to pay for it. We have never paid for it before. We have
imposed those various incentives. They are good. We passed them 88 to 8
one time. We are for doing that again, but we are not for doing that in
the manner suggested by the legislation from the House which came over
here. It is our second vote. We ought to just say no to that and say
[[Page 11909]]
we are ready to extend those tax credits and we are ready to do that in
exactly the way we have done it before, with no taxes added to the
American people or to anyone--just go ahead and do those tax extenders,
which we desperately need.
Let me repeat. One of the most important things we need is an
extension of those tax extenders. We do not need a tax bill that will
pay for those extenders because we have already done it without taxes.
We ought to do that again, nice and clean and quick. That would be a
very good start toward an alternative energy policy or a continuation
of one.
Mr. President, I wish to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania at this point.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
New Mexico.
I have sought recognition to state my reasons for opposing the motion
to proceed to cloture because this bill has too many facets. It was my
hope that the majority leader would have separated this bill into the
component parts. I cannot support legislation which would impede
exploration for oil, which is what part of this bill is. But there are
parts of this bill which are very important, and they ought to be taken
up separately--for example, the legislation that defines and
establishes penalties for price gouging by the oil and gas industry. It
increases regulation of oil futures markets, and it includes the
provision to eliminate the antitrust exemption for OPEC countries.
It does not have to be said on the floor of the Senate that
enormously serious problems exist today with the price of oil and with
the price of gasoline at the pump. The newspapers are full of it. It is
an atrocious situation that is happening, and we desperately need
relief.
There are very substantial indicators that a good bit of this problem
is caused by price gouging. The legislation ought to be separated out
so that we act on that. There are significant indicators that the oil
futures market is causing speculators to jack up the price of oil.
There ought to be regulation on that. We ought to take it up
separately. When it comes to the antitrust exemption for the OPEC
countries, it is atrocious. A few of these countries get together in a
room, they lower production, and that increases prices. That bill was
passed by the Senate with 70 votes. It has been passed by the House of
Representatives. We ought to be taking that up separately. If we took
up these measures separately, we would have an opportunity to give some
relief to the American people.
Candidly, it is incomprehensible to me why we are not taking up the
cost of oil and the cost of gas at the pump, to try to alleviate the
pressure on the American people--and for that matter, worldwide. If we
were to eliminate the OPEC antitrust exemption--to which they are not
entitled; it is not a sovereign immunity issue, it is a commercial
transaction--we have the authority to do that. One Federal judge has
already upheld that approach. If we worked on the approach, if we
worked on what the traders are doing on speculation, we would have some
real effect. We are not too busy to take up this issue, aside from a
few minutes on the Senate floor. There is no reason it has to be joined
with what is obviously a poison pill, where you talk about acting
against the oil and gas industry to discourage exploration. We know
exploration is vitally necessary, so I cannot support this legislation
in its present form, but it ought to be divided. We ought to take up
the antitrust exemption separately.
We ought to move ahead on a matter of pressing importance. There is
nothing more important for the American people, for the people of the
world. I urge the majority leader, who sets the schedule, to reconsider
and separate these bill so we can act in a meaningful and important
way.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the floor at this time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is
recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, every day Americans are watching the
price of oil and gas shoot up higher and higher, and are watching as it
gets harder and harder to make ends meet.
This week, the national average price of gasoline broke the $4 per
gallon mark. When George Bush took office, gas cost just $1.46 a
gallon. This dramatic increase in oil prices has brought prices for
food up along with it, and American families are faced with a painful
financial choice when it comes time to fill-up--do they fill up their
gas tank or do they forgo a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk?
Businesses are cutting jobs. Families have already eliminated
nonessentials and are now cutting back on meals. Some Americans are
even contemplating quitting their jobs because they can't afford the
gas to get there. It has become painfully clear: We are in an oil
crisis. And we had better start taking action to get out of this mess.
Fuel efficiency, alternative fuels, and mass transit are the long-
term answers that I will soon discuss, but consumers need immediate
help, and the Consumer-First Energy Act will provide that relief.
The first thing the Democratic bill will do is make sure that our
commodities markets are functioning fairly. The supply and demand
equation is roughly the same as it was 2 years ago and yet we have seen
prices go through the roof.
We all remember the damage Enron did to our Nation's economy by
manipulating unregulated electricity markets. The Consumer-First Energy
Act will make sure that oil is traded on well-regulated, transparent
markets which are free from manipulation. It requires Commodities
Futures Trading Commission oversight, sensible margin requirements, and
standard participant disclosures.
By making the oil futures market conform to usual standards and
practices, we can combat excessive speculation and insure that the
markets are free from manipulation.
The Consumer-First Energy Act also makes sure that oil companies are
not taking advantage of American consumers. The Bush energy policy was
written by energy companies for energy companies. And while it has
worked well for energy companies, it has completely failed the American
public. The major oil companies made $124 billion in profits last year
and will earn even higher profits this year.
Are the oil companies using these enormous profits to give consumers
a break at the pump? No. Are they using those profits to invest in new
refineries or develop alternative fuels? No. Despite what my friends on
the other side of the aisle might claim, big oil is not looking out for
the American driver. Big oil is looking out for itself. Our colleagues
on the other side offer more of the same.
Yet, despite the fact that big oil is doing all it can to reap record
profits at the expense of our economy, big oil is in line to receive
over $17 billion in tax breaks.
The Consumer-First Energy Act will fix this problem and make sure
that big oil is paying its fair share of taxes, and isn't profiteering
at the expense of American consumers. It includes a windfall profits
tax which would raise revenue to invest in sustainable, domestic
sources of energy and to provide relief to consumers suffering under
high energy prices.
We must act now to provide immediate relief to American families. But
in addition to relief and protections included in the Consumer-First
Energy Act, we also need to think about what we can do to reduce
consumption and rein in costs in the long term.
My friends on the other side of the aisle do not want to address this
oil crisis. Indeed, they want to exploit it to try to provide even more
Government help for their big oil supporters. They tell their
constituents that the answer to our oil addiction is to drill, drill,
drill. But feeding the addiction by tapping another vein just drills us
into a deeper hole.
The fact is that the world's largest remaining oil reserves are in
the hands of foreign governments. That means it is difficult if not
impossible for us to control our supply of oil. But the one
[[Page 11910]]
thing we can control is our demand. In the long term, we need to invest
in alternative energy, mass transit, and increasing fuel efficiency.
While we work to make alternative fuel technologies more affordable
we need to drastically improve fuel economy. If we had increased fuel
economy a modest 2 percent per year since 1981, our fleet would now
average 34 miles per gallon. This alone would have cut our demand for
oil by 30 percent while saving over 30 billion barrels of oil. 30
billion barrels of oil. According to the Energy Information Agency that
is more than the proven oil reserves remaining in the United States. It
is commendable that we finally raised CAFE standards this year, but we
are going to have to make our vehicles a lot more efficient to make up
for lost time.
We also need tax incentives for hybrids and plug-in hybrids, and need
to support advanced battery research. Once our transportation
infrastructure can run on alternative fuels like electricity or
cellulosic ethanol, consumers will finally have a choice. We will be
able to choose not to buy oil, and that will force gas prices back to
Earth.
The last, but perhaps most important, long-term solution to our
current oil crisis is an immediate and substantial investment in mass
transit. More people are taking commuter trains, buses, and even
ferries now than in the past 50 years.
For millions, having the option to use alternative transportation
modes has been essential to getting to work affordably. It is time we
finally fully funded mass transit at the level it deserves.
It is time for a real cure, not the tired old policies of the past.
This bill gives the American people what they need right now, to get
through the immediate problem and start us down the path to real,
sustainable, long-term solutions to our energy crisis.
I hope our colleagues seize the moment, vote for the motion, and move
us to the type of relief Americans are looking for.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, am I correct in assuming that I have 2
minutes, plus the leader's time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes and will reserve the
remainder.
Mr. President, the American people are clamoring for relief at the
pump. In 1 year we have seen a 16-point increase in the percentage of
Americans who seek more exploration and production of oil and gas in
this country.
Today, according to a recent Gallup poll, 57 percent of Americans are
seeking more exploration and production of oil and gas here at home. I
do not know what percentage of Americans would like to see higher
taxes, increased prices, and greater imports, but I suspect it would be
very low. But according to the independent Congressional Research
Service, that is what the people will get if the Reid tax increase is
enacted into law. They will get exactly what they do not want, because
the bill will raise taxes, increase imports, and contribute to a
pattern of sending more than half a trillion dollars overseas to
hostile regions.
I will oppose the motion to proceed this morning. I wish to start by
looking at the windfall profits tax contained in this bill. The
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found a windfall profits tax
could have several adverse effects and could be expected to reduce
domestic oil production and increase the level of imports. This group
is not alone in their estimate. The Wall Street Journal predicts a
windfall profit tax is a sure formula ``to keep the future price of gas
higher.''
It is not simply these two views that warn against a windfall profits
tax. Former officials from both the Carter and Clinton administrations
have spoken. The Under Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton
administration recently said:
A new windfall profits tax, however emotionally satisfying
it may seem, also harms most people saving for their
retirement or living on retirement savings. More than 40
percent of that cost would fall on tens of millions of
seniors and retirees who own oil stock directly or indirectly
through their pension plans and retirement accounts.
An individual named Phil Verleger, the individual responsible for
implementing the tax during the Carter years, recently called a
windfall profits tax ``a terrible idea today.''
There seems to be a consensus everywhere that the windfall profits
tax is a bad idea, except in the halls of Congress and within the
Chavez administration in Venezuela. It is not only conjecture that
leads us to the conclusion that this is a bad idea but, rather, an
understanding of history. Between 1980 and 1986 when the last windfall
profits tax was in place, domestic oil production was reduced by as
much as 8 percent and our imports rose from 32 percent to 38 percent.
Revenues for the tax came in well below what was originally estimated,
and the tax came to be called an administrative nightmare that stunted
economic growth. It was a bad idea then and it is a bad idea now, and
it should be rejected. About that I am certain.
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 10 seconds remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. On the time I yielded to myself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to try to raise a concept and see if we can get
this where more people would begin to discuss this idea. In a hearing
about 8 days ago, a crude oil expert made the statement that we would
be using oil as a bridge to the future for more than 30 years. Let me
repeat. We will be using crude oil as a bridge to the future for more
than 30 years, this expert said, perhaps 40 years or more.
That is kind of common sense. Crude oil is used to make gasoline and
things such as gasoline, and those are used in the importation
industry. We cannot get rid of that quickly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is now using leadership time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will use 1 minute and then I will sit down. Let me
repeat so everybody will get this. For something like 40 years, we will
be using crude oil, our own or others, because we cannot get rid of the
current mode of transportation any quicker. Cars will be cars, and we
will be using them because we cannot wean them off the scene. As we
move to a better era of a better life where we do not have to use crude
oil in our daily lives so much, we will have to use the bridge which
will be crude oil.
Now, why do I talk about this? I do because it is important we
understand that if we have any cards, playing poker, if we have any
aces in our hands, we better go ahead and play them, and the aces are
crude oil we might produce some way that is ours. We ought to go ahead
and play the card. I submit that we do have a lot of aces. We have got
a huge amount of crude oil that is in the Outer Continental Shelf that
we ought to be exploring for forthwith. We ought to take the moratoria
off and start at 50 miles out across this land. If we did that and sent
that message for starters, it would be received in a terrific way. Take
the moratoria that were put in the bill that has been referred to as
the Domenici bill for production, and believe it or not, we would send
a signal that America is coming back to life, and during that bridge
time we are going to produce more oil on our own.
Nothing will help us more in reducing the price and cost to our
consumers than that idea we implemented. We must try to do it even if
the Democrats do not want us to. We have got to try to force a vote so
that people understand what we are trying to do.
I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator seeking to preserve the
leader's time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. McCASKILL. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume the Chair is telling me that I
cannot reserve any of the leader's time, so
[[Page 11911]]
I can sit down and take it at a later time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That requires consent. Consent was not
granted. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. All right. I will use it now.
Now, Senators today should have been--under anyone's understanding of
the dilemma we are in with the price of oil scaring the American people
to death, the amount of money we are sending out of our country to meet
our energy needs, it is going to reach $600 billion a year. With the
escalating price of crude oil, that is what it looks like next year. It
will be what a full year will cost us, $600 billion. I would think with
that in mind, there would be on the floor of the Senate some real
proposals by the Democratic leadership and the majority party.
Instead, what do we get? We get what I call a ``no-energy energy
bill.'' It is a no-energy energy bill because it does not produce an
ounce of energy; it raises the cost instead of lowering the cost of
crude oil; it produces less rather than more crude oil. That is why
there is nothing going on on the floor, because there is nothing
exciting. The Democrats have offered nothing.
We are begging them to try something. We are begging them to try
something that would produce more American oil or oil substitutes. We
know what they are. The distinguished Senator from Colorado knows what
they are. We know that offshore, deepwater exploration around the
shores of America could be put in effect by raising the moratorium, and
we would have literally billions of reserves of oil and trillions of
cubic feet of natural gas readily made available.
We need to take off the moratorium that we put on ourselves, take it
off and say to the people: Let's produce it. It would take a few years.
But the signal would be positive. We would have the oil shale in your
State and Utah, your sister State, if we said we are ready to set the
final guidelines so the oil companies can invest. Someone down here
prior to my speech said the oil companies will not do anything to help.
Yes, indeed they will. One of them is investing $8.5 billion in oil
shale and tar sands up in our neighboring country of Canada. Some
people think that is terrible, because they did not want them to
produce that kind of oil. But I do not think it is terrible, because it
eliminates the potential for gouging, for prices being too high.
Because if you have these great inventories of resources and they are
yours and you can use them, you ameliorate the increasing price of oil,
and we ought to be doing that.
Instead of that, we are down here talking about a second bill. The
second bill is a bill passed by the House, sent over here to us that is
full of tax increases to pay for a series of tax incentives that we
should pass without the tax increases. We have done it before, we ought
to do it.
That bill ought to be defeated, no question about it, because we
ought to pass it. We need the incentives, but we do not need the tax
increases. We have done it without tax increases twice before, and
somehow or other the House keeps getting it put in their head if they
send it over here with other tax increases, different ones, we will go
for it. I think it is pretty clear we will not.
So it is an interesting day. Instead of being here with some positive
things we are going to do, we will be here defending some old ideas
that are not going to help one bit, and we are saying, let's try them
anyway.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, day after day record-high oil and gasoline
prices are causing immense harm to millions of American consumers and
businesses. Unless something is done to make energy more affordable,
these record-high prices will continue to damage our economy,
increasing the prices of transportation, food, manufacturing, and
everything in between. Skyrocketing energy prices are a threat to our
economic and national security, and the time is long past for action.
My Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has conducted four
separate investigations into how our energy markets can be made to work
better. Most recently, last December, we had a joint hearing with the
Senate Energy Subcommittee on the role of speculation in rising energy
prices. As a result of these investigations and hearings, I have been
advocating a variety of measures to address the rampant speculation and
lack of regulation of energy markets which have contributed to sky high
energy prices:
First, put a cop--a regulatory agency--back on the beat in the energy
markets to prevent excessive speculation and manipulation. That
includes closing the Enron loophole and the London loophole and taking
other steps to strengthen market oversight.
Second, develop alternatives to fossil fuels to reduce our dependence
on oil.
Third, impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies that have
profited from the massive price runup and use the money to help
consumers, boost domestic energy supplies, improve energy technologies,
and strengthen our energy markets.
One of the major causes of our energy crisis is the failed policies
of the current administration. The chickens have come home to roost on
7 years of a business-as-usual energy policy, paired with fiscal and
foreign policies that have pushed our growing energy problem close to a
breaking point. Because the administration has proved itself unable and
unwilling to take the necessary steps to provide affordable energy
supplies to the American people, it is up to the Congress to try to
jump-start a comprehensive solution to skyrocketing energy prices.
Congress already has taken two important steps this year--we have
closed the Enron loophole and we have stopped the administration's
misguided program to keep on filling the SPR despite record-high
prices--but more can and should be done. That is why I support
enactment of the Consumer-First Energy Act now before us and will be
voting for cloture on this bill.
Last week the price of crude oil reached a record high price of about
$139 per barrel. Sky-high crude oil prices have led to record highs in
the price of other fuels produced from crude oil, including gasoline,
heating oil, diesel fuel, and jet fuel. The national average price of
gasoline is at a record high of just over $4 per gallon. The price of
diesel fuel, which is normally less expensive than gasoline, has soared
to a record high of nearly $4.60 per gallon.
Rising energy prices increase the cost of getting to work and taking
our children to school, traveling by car, truck, air and rail, and
growing the food we eat and transporting it to market. Rising energy
prices increase the cost of producing the medicines we need for our
health, heating our homes and offices, generating electricity, and
manufacturing countless industrial and consumer products. The
relentless increase in jet fuel prices, which have added nearly $75
billion to our airlines' annual fuel costs, has contributed to airline
bankruptcies, mergers, fare increases, and service cuts. ``If fuel
continues to go up, this industry cannot survive in current form,'' the
president of the Air Transport Association said recently. Rising diesel
prices have placed a crushing burden upon our Nation's truckers,
farmers, manufacturers, and other industries. To make matters worse,
our energy costs are rising much more quickly than energy costs in
other countries, directly threatening our global competitiveness.
In January 2001, when President Bush took office, the price of oil
was about $30 per barrel. The average price for a gallon of gasoline
was about $1.50. Since President Bush took office, crude oil prices
have more than quadrupled, natural gas prices to heat our homes have
almost doubled, gasoline prices have nearly tripled, and diesel fuel
prices have more than tripled.
It doesn't have to be this way. Just 7 years ago, at the end of the
Clinton Administration, energy supplies were plentiful, and gasoline
and other forms of energy were affordable. Once the Bush administration
took office, however, it didn't take them long to eliminate the budget
surplus by cutting taxes mainly for the wealthiest among us, creating a
huge annual budget deficit, and driving up the national debt.
[[Page 11912]]
This fiscal mismanagement has contributed significantly to a steep
decline in the value of the dollar and soaring commodity prices.
Because American currency is worth less, it takes more of them to buy
the same barrel of oil. American consumers and businesses are forced to
spend more and more of their hard-earned dollars to buy the same amount
of energy.
During the last years of the Clinton administration, the United
States ran a budget surplus, totaling nearly $560 billion. But over the
past 6 years of the Bush administration the annual deficits have
totaled nearly $1.7 trillion, not counting the amount by which the Bush
administration has been draining the Social Security and Medicare trust
funds. When this is counted, under this administration the total
outstanding debt has increased by a whopping $3.2 trillion.
When President Clinton left office, the dollar was worth more than
the Euro. In January 2001, it took only about 90 cents to buy one Euro.
Today, it takes about $1.60 to buy one Euro--a record low for the
dollar. The fall in the value of the dollar is a result of a weakened
U.S. economy, a high trade deficit and a worldwide lack of confidence
in the Bush administration's ability to manage our Nation's economy and
foreign policy.
As long as this administration continues to insist on irresponsible
fiscal practices--including tax cuts for people with the highest income
and an open-ended conflict in Iraq that is costing $12 billion a
month--the dollar will likely continue to decline in value. The
marketplace has rendered a clear ``no confidence'' in this
administration's fiscal competence.
Besides the weak dollar, there are other factors at work that account
for soaring energy prices. Some are beyond our control; others we can
do something about. In global markets, for example, the combination of
increasing demand from developing countries, coupled with a variety of
political problems in supplier countries, has contributed to price
increases. Growing demand for oil and gas in China, India, and other
developing countries is contributing to an overall increase in global
demand for crude oil. On the supply side, many oil producing countries
are politically unstable and have not been fully reliable suppliers.
For example, in Nigeria, which is a major oil-producing country, for
several years tribal gangs have been sabotaging production and
pipelines.
While we can't do much about growing demand in China and India, other
causes of high prices can be addressed. For example, one key factor in
energy price spikes is rampant speculation in the energy markets.
Traders are trading contracts for future delivery of oil in record
amounts, creating a paper demand that is driving up prices and
increasing price volatility solely to take a profit. Overall, the
amount of trading of futures and options in oil on the New York
Mercantile Exchange has risen sixfold in recent years, from 500,000
outstanding contracts in 2001, to about 3 million contracts now.
Much of this increase in trading of futures has been due to
speculation. Speculators in the oil market do not intend to use crude
oil; instead they buy and sell contracts for crude oil just to make a
profit from the changing prices. The number of futures and options
contracts held by speculators has gone from around 100,000 contracts in
2001, which was 20 percent of the total number of outstanding
contracts, to 1.2 million contracts currently held by speculators,
which represents almost 40 percent of the outstanding futures and
options contracts in oil on NYMEX.
There are now 12 times as many speculative holdings as there was in
2001, while holdings of nonspeculative futures and options are up but 3
times.
Not surprisingly, this massive speculation that the price of oil will
increase has, in fact, helped fuel the actual increase in the price of
oil to a level far above the price that is justified by the traditional
forces of supply and demand.
The president and CEO of Marathon Oil recently said, ``$100 oil isn't
justified by the physical demand in the market. It has to be
speculation on the futures market that is fueling this.'' Mr. Fadel
Gheit, oil analyst for Oppenheimer and Company, describes the oil
market as ``a farce.'' ``The speculators have seized control and it's
basically a free-for-all, a global gambling hall, and it won't shut
down unless and until responsible governments step in.'' In January of
this year, as oil hit $100 barrel, Mr. Tim Evans, oil analyst for
Citigroup, wrote ``the larger supply and demand fundamentals do not
support a further rise and are, in fact, more consistent with lower
price levels.'' At the joint hearing on the effects of speculation held
by my subcommittee last December, Dr. Edward Krapels, a financial
market analyst, testified, ``Of course financial trading, speculation
affects the price of oil because it affects the price of everything we
trade. . . . It would be amazing if oil somehow escaped this effect.''
Dr. Krapels added that as a result of this speculation, ``There is a
bubble in oil prices.''
A fair price for a commodity is a price that accurately reflects the
forces of supply and demand for the commodity, not the trading
strategies of speculators who only are in the market to make a profit
by the buying and selling of paper contracts with no intent to actually
purchase, deliver, or transfer the commodity. As we have all too often
seen in recent years, when speculation grows so large that it has a
major impact on the market, prices get distorted and stop reflecting
true supply and demand.
Last month, Senator Jack Reed and I wrote a letter asking President
Bush to appoint a high-level task force to evaluate how speculators are
driving up prices through manipulative or deceptive devices. The task
force should also evaluate whether there are adequate regulatory tools
to control market speculation and prevent manipulation. Hopefully the
President will act quickly to convene this task force.
Excessive market speculation is a factor that we can and should do a
better job of controlling. There are other long overdue actions as well
that, if taken as part of a comprehensive plan, can combat rising
energy prices.
As to reining in speculation, the first step to take is to put a cop
back on the beat in all our energy markets to prevent excessive
speculation, price manipulation, and trading abuses. In 2001, my Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations began investigating our energy
markets. At the time, the price of a gallon of gasoline had spiked
upwards by about 25 cents over the course of the Memorial Day holiday.
We subpoenaed records from major oil companies and interviewed oil
industry experts, gas station dealers, antitrust experts, gasoline
wholesalers and distributors, and oil company executives. We examined
thousands of prices at gas stations in Michigan, Ohio, California, and
other States. In the spring of 2002, I released a 400-page report and
held 2 days of hearings on the results of the investigation.
The investigation found that increasing concentration in the gasoline
refining industry, due to a large number of recent mergers and
acquisitions, was one of the causes of the increasing number of
gasoline price spikes. Another factor causing price spikes was the
increasing tendency of refiners to keep lower inventories of gasoline.
We also found a number of instances in which the increasing
concentration in the refining industry was also leading to higher
prices in general. Limitations on the pipeline that brings gasoline
into my home State of Michigan were another cause of price increases
and spikes in Michigan. The report recommended that the Federal Trade
Commission carefully investigate proposed mergers, particularly with
respect to the effect of mergers on inventories of gasoline.
The investigation discovered one instance in which a major oil
company was considering ways to prevent other refiners from supplying
gasoline to the Midwest so that supply would be constricted and prices
would increase.
In March 2003, my subcommittee released a second report detailing how
the operation of crude oil markets affects the price of not only
gasoline but also key commodities like home heating oil, jet fuel, and
diesel fuel. The report warned that U.S. energy markets were vulnerable
to price manipulation
[[Page 11913]]
due to a lack of comprehensive regulation and market oversight.
Following this report, I worked with Senator Feinstein on legislation
to put the cop back on the beat in those energy markets that had been
exempted from regulation pursuant to an ``Enron loophole'' that was
snuck into other legislation in December 2000. For 2 years we attempted
to close the Enron loophole, but efforts to put the cop back on the
beat in these markets were unsuccessful, due to opposition from the
Bush administration, large energy companies, and large financial
institutions that trade energy commodities.
In June 2006, I released another Subcommittee report, ``The Role of
Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices: A Need to Put a Cop on
the Beat.'' This report found that the traditional forces of supply and
demand no longer accounted for sustained price increases and price
volatility in the oil and gasoline markets. The report determined that,
in 2006, that a growing number of energy trades occurred without
regulatory oversight and that market speculation had contributed to
rising oil and gasoline prices, perhaps accounting for $20 out of a
then-priced $70 barrel of oil.
The subcommittee report I released in June 2006 again recommended new
laws to increase market oversight and stop market manipulation and
excessive speculation. I again coauthored legislation with Senator
Feinstein to improve oversight of the unregulated energy markets. Once
again, opposition from the Bush administration, large energy traders,
and the financial industry prevented the full Senate from considering
this legislation.
In 2007, my Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations addressed the
sharp rise in natural gas prices over the previous year and released a
fourth report, entitled ``Excessive Speculation in the Natural Gas
Market.'' Our investigation showed that speculation by a single hedge
fund named Amaranth had distorted natural gas prices during the summer
of 2006 and drove up prices for average consumers. The report also
demonstrated how Amaranth had traded in unregulated markets to avoid
the restrictions and oversight in the regulated markets and how the
price increases caused by Amaranth could have been prevented if there
had been the same type of oversight in the unregulated markets as in
the regulated markets.
Following this investigation, I introduced a new bill, S. 2058, to
close the Enron loophole and regulate the unregulated electronic energy
markets. Working again with Senators Feinstein and Snowe and with the
members of the Agriculture Committee in a bipartisan effort, we finally
managed to include an amendment to close the Enron loophole in the farm
bill that was then being considered by the Senate. The Senate
unanimously passed this amendment to close the Enron loophole last
December. The final farm bill that was passed by the House and Senate
last month included language nearly identical to what the Senate had
passed. Although President Bush vetoed the entire farm bill, both the
House and Senate have overridden his veto. Our 5-year quest to close
the Enron Loophole has finally been successful.
The CFTC is now in the process of implementing the close-the-Enron-
loophole law. Among other steps, it is charged with reviewing the
contracts on previously unregulated energy markets, like the
Intercontinental Exchange or ICE, to determine which contracts have a
significant effect on energy prices and must undergo daily oversight.
Once that process is complete, the cop will be back on the beat in
those markets for the first time since 2000.
Closing the Enron loophole is vitally important for energy market
oversight as a whole, and for our natural gas markets in particular,
but it is not enough. Because over the last 2 years, energy traders
have moved a significant amount of U.S. crude oil and gasoline trading
to the United Kingdom, beyond the direct reach of U.S. regulators, we
have to address that second loophole too. I call it closing the London
loophole.
There are currently two key energy commodity markets for U.S. crude
oil and gasoline trading. The first is the New York Mercantile Exchange
or NYMEX, located in New York City. The second is the ICE Futures
Europe exchange, located in London and regulated by the British agency
called the Financial Services Authority.
The British regulators, however, do not oversee their energy markets
the same way we do; they don't place limits on speculation like we do,
and they don't make public the same type of trading data that we do.
That means that traders can avoid the limits on speculation in crude
oil imposed on the New York exchange by trading on the London exchange.
It also makes the London exchange less transparent than the New York
exchange. My original legislation to close the Enron loophole would
have required U.S. traders on the London exchange to provide U.S.
regulators with the same type of trading information that they are
already required to provide when they trade on the New York Mercantile
Exchange. Unfortunately, this provision was dropped from the close-the-
Enron-loophole legislation in the farm bill.
The Consumer-First Energy Act, S. 3044, which the majority leader and
others introduced recently to address high prices and reduce
speculation, includes at my request a provision to curb rampant
speculation, increase our access to foreign exchange trading data, and
strengthen oversight of the trading of U.S. energy commodities no
matter where that trading occurs. This provision would require the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFTC, prior to allowing a foreign
exchange to establish direct trading terminals located in this country,
to obtain an agreement from the that foreign exchange, such as the
London exchange, to impose speculative limits and reporting
requirements on traders of U.S. energy commodities that are comparable
to the requirements imposed by the CFTC on U.S. exchanges. I believe
this issue is so important that I have introduced this section of the
package as a separate bill, which is numbered S. 2995. Senator
Feinstein is a cosponsor of that bill.
Following the introduction of our legislation, the CFTC finally moved
to address some of the gaps in its ability to oversee foreign exchanges
operating in the United States. Specifically, the CFTC, working with
the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority and the ICE Futures
Europe exchange, announced that it will now obtain the following
information about the trading of U.S. crude oil contracts on the London
exchange:
Daily large trader reports on positions in West Texas
Intermediate or WTI contracts traded on the London exchange;
information on those large trader positions for all futures
contracts, not just a limited set of contracts due to expire
in the near future; enhanced trader information to permit
more detailed identification of end users; improved data
formatting to facilitate integration of the data with other
CFTC data systems; and notification to the CFTC of when a
trader on ICE Futures Europe exceeds the position
accountability levels established by NYMEX for the trading of
WTI crude oil contracts.
These new steps will strengthen the CFTC's ability to detect and
prevent manipulation and excessive speculation in the oil and gasoline
markets. It will ensure that the CFTC has the same type of information
it receives from U.S. exchanges in order to detect and prevent
manipulation and excessive speculation.
However, in order to fully close the London loophole, better
information is not enough. The CFTC must also have clear authority to
act upon this information to stop manipulation and excessive
speculation.
That is why I have been working with the sponsors of the Consumer-
First Energy Act to include additional language to ensure that the CFTC
has the authority to act upon the information it will obtain from the
London exchange, in order to prevent price manipulation and excessive
speculation. This new provision, which I helped author, would make it
clear that the CFTC has the authority to prosecute and punish
manipulation of the price of a commodity, regardless of whether the
trader within the United States is trading on a U.S. or on a foreign
exchange.
[[Page 11914]]
It would also make it clear that the CFTC has the authority to require
traders in the United States to reduce their positions, no matter where
the trading occurs--on a U.S. or foreign exchange--to prevent price
manipulation or excessive speculation. Finally, it would clarify that
the CFTC has the authority to require all U.S. traders to keep records
of their trades, regardless of which exchange the trader is using.
It is my understanding that this new provision will be included in a
substitute amendment that will be offered today or in a future debate
on this bill, if cloture is not invoked today. I thank the bill
sponsors for accepting this language to ensure that the CFTC has full
enforcement authority over traders within the United States who are
trading on a foreign exchange, just as the CFTC has over traders who
are trading on a U.S. exchange. This clarification of the CFTC's
enforcement authority over traders in the United States, together with
the earlier provision setting standards for foreign boards of trade
wishing to place trading terminals in the United States, will fully
close the London loophole.
There is another problem with our energy markets that Congress has
finally acted on. In 2003, a report issued by my Subcommittee staff
found that the Bush administration's large deposits of oil into the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, were increasing crude oil prices
without improving overall U.S. energy security. We found that in 2002,
the Bush administration, over the repeated objections of its own
experts in the Department of Energy, had changed its policy and decided
to put oil into the SPR regardless of the price of oil or market
conditions. By placing oil into the SPR while oil prices were high and
oil supplies were tight, the administration's deposits into the SPR
were reducing market supplies and boosting prices, with almost no
benefit to national security, given the fact that the SPR is more than
95 percent filled. The DOE experts believed that in a tight market, we
are better off with keeping the oil on the market rather than putting
it into the ground where it cannot be used.
Following the issuance of this report, in early 2003, I asked the
Department of Energy to suspend its filling of the SPR until prices had
abated and supplies were more plentiful. DOE refused to change course
and continued the SPR fill without regard to market supplies or prices.
After DOE denied my request, I offered a bipartisan amendment with
Senator Collins to the Interior appropriations bill, which provides
funding for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve program, to require DOE to
minimize the costs to the taxpayers and market impacts when placing oil
into the SPR. The Senate unanimously adopted our amendment, but it was
dropped from the conference report due to the Bush Administration's
continued opposition.
The next spring, I offered another amendment, also with Senator
Collins, to the budget resolution, expressing the sense of the Senate
that the administration should postpone deliveries into the SPR and use
the savings from the postponement to increase funding for national
security programs. The amendment passed the Senate by a vote of 52 to
43. That fall, we attempted to attach a similar amendment to the
homeland security appropriations bill that would have postponed the SPR
fill and used the savings for homeland security programs, but the
amendment was defeated by a procedural vote, even though the majority
of Senators voted in favor of the amendment, 48 to 47.
The next year, the Senate passed the Levin-Collins amendment to the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require the DOE to consider price impacts
and minimize the costs to the taxpayers and market impacts when placing
oil into the SPR. The Levin-Collins amendment was agreed to by the
conferees and is now law.
Unfortunately, passage of this provision has had no effect upon DOE's
actions. DOE continued to fill the SPR regardless of the market effects
of buying oil, thereby taking oil off the market and reducing supply by
placing it into the SPR. In the past year, no matter what the price of
oil or market conditions, DOE consistently found that the market
effects are negligible and no reason to delay filling the SPR.
Most recently, at the same time the President was urging OPEC to put
more oil on the market to reduce supplies, the administration was
continuing to take oil off the market and place it into the SPR. Until
recently, the DOE was depositing about 70,000 barrels of crude oil per
day into the SPR, much of it high-quality crude oil ideal for refining
into gasoline. It defies common sense for the U.S. Government to be
acquiring oil at $120 or $130 per barrel, in a time of tight supply,
taking that oil off the market, and putting it in the SPR. That is why
I cosponsored Senator Dorgan's bill to suspend the SPR fill, as well as
a similar provision in the Consumer-First Energy Act.
Finally, Congress had had enough of this senseless policy. The
provision to stop the continuous filing of the SPR was pulled from the
Consumer-First Energy Act and offered in the House and Senate as a
stand alone bill. Congress enacted into law by an overwhelming vote. In
response, the President finally called a halt to his policy and stopped
filling the SPR. It is about time.
The SPR fill policy, by the way, exacerbated yet another problem in
our oil markets--the fact that the standard NYMEX futures contract that
sets the benchmark price for U.S. crude oil requires a particular type
of high quality crude oil known as West Texas Intermediate, WTI, to be
delivered at a particular location, Cushing, OK. The standard NYMEX
contract price, in turn, has a major influence on the price of fuels
refined from crude oil such as gasoline, heating oil, and diesel.
Because the price of the standard contract depends upon the supply of
WTI at Cushing, OK, the supply and demand conditions in Oklahoma have a
disproportionate influence on the price of NYMEX futures contracts.
That means when the WTI price is no longer representative of the price
of U.S. crude oil in general, the prices of other energy commodities
are also thrown out of whack. In other words, we have an oil futures
market that reflects the supply and demand conditions in Cushing, OK,
but not necessarily the overall supply and demand situation in the
United States as a whole.
I have long called for reform of this outdated feature of the
standard NYMEX crude oil contract. In 2003, the PSI report recommended
the CFTC and NYMEX to work together to revise the standard NYMEX crude
oil futures contract to reduce its susceptibility to local imbalances
in the market for WTI crude oil. The subcommittee report suggested that
allowing for delivery at other locations could reduce the volatility of
the contract. It is truly disappointing that since our report was
issued no progress has been made for allowing for delivery at other
places than Cushing, OK. As the price of oil has increased, the
distortions and imbalances caused by the atypical nature of the
standard contract have gotten worse. It is essential NYMEX repair its
crude oil contract.
Putting the cop on the beat in our energy markets, strengthening
oversight of U.S. energy commodities traded on foreign exchanges,
stopping the SPR fill, and fixing the NYMEX crude oil contract all
focus on problems caused by rising energy prices. These consistently
rising gas prices also underscore the need to develop advanced vehicle
technologies and alternative energy sources that will significantly
reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
I have long advocated advanced automotive technologies such as hybrid
electric, advanced batteries, hydrogen and fuel cells and promoted
development of these technologies through Federal research and
development and through joint government-industry partnerships. We need
a significant infusion of Federal dollars into these efforts to make
revolutionary breakthroughs in automotive technologies. Such an
investment will make technologies such as plug-in hybrid vehicles
affordable to the American public and reduce our dependence on oil and
reduce prices at the pump.
We need an equally strong investment in development of alternative
[[Page 11915]]
fuels that can replace gasoline. I have strongly supported efforts to
increase our production of renewable fuels and to do that in a way that
will also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We need a strong push
toward biofuels produced from cellulosic materials, which requires a
significantly greater Federal investment in biofuels technologies.
Cellulosic ethanol has enormous potential for significant reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions, but additional Federal support is required to
make this technology financially viable. We need expanded Federal
research and development grants as well as increased tax incentives and
Federal loan guarantees to make cellulosic ethanol a viable replacement
for gasoline. The Federal Government must do its part first to develop
these technologies so that they will then in turn be within reach of
the American public.
One more point. The burden of higher energy prices is not being
shared equally. To the contrary, it is falling hardest upon those who
can least afford it. Large oil companies are reaping record profits at
the expense of the average American who ultimately bears the full
burden of these price increases. At the same time that average
Americans are having to devote a greater and greater portion of their
income to pay for basic necessities, such as gasoline, household
utilities, and food, the major oil companies are reporting record
profits and their executives are taking home annual paychecks of
hundreds of millions of dollars. Many of these profits have been
generated without any additional investments into energy production.
Rather, these companies have seen their profits rise with the flood of
speculation. What is a high tide of profits for the oil companies,
though, is a tsunami that is overwhelming millions of Americans.
And what are these oil companies doing with these record profits? Are
they investing in new technologies? The answer is that the oil
companies are not increasing their exploration and development
investments by nearly as much as their profits are increasing. Instead,
they are devoting large amounts of their profits to acquiring other
companies and buying back their own shares. On May 1 of this year, the
Wall Street Journal reported that in the first quarter of 2008
ExxonMobil spent $8 billion to buy back company shares, which ``boosted
per-share earnings to stratospheric levels,'' whereas it spent less on
exploration and actually reduced oil production.
For these reasons, we need to institute a windfall profits tax on the
oil companies. We should incentivize big oil companies to invest their
windfall profits into things that will increase our own domestic energy
production by reducing the amount of the tax for such investments. If
they don't make these investments, a portion of that profit should be
recouped by the public to help offset the outrageous prices they are
facing at the pump.
I have supported a windfall profits tax numerous times when we have
voted on it in the Senate. The Consumer-First Energy Act, imposes a 25
percent tax on windfall profits of the major oil companies. Windfall
profits invested to boost domestic energy supplies would be exempt from
the tax, which would encourage investments in renewable facilities and
the production of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. It
would also encourage oil companies to increase their domestic refinery
capacity. Proceeds from the tax would be put toward measures to reduce
the burdens of rising energy costs and increase our energy independence
and security.
Sky-high energy prices are causing immense financial pain to working
families and businesses throughout this country and tying our already
weak economy in knots. Congress cannot just stand by; we must act now
to stop the pain. Immediate steps include putting the cop on the beat
in all of our energy markets to prevent price manipulation and
excessive speculation, strengthening oversight of U.S. energy
commodities traded in London, fixing the key NYMEX crude oil contract,
investing in advanced vehicle technologies and alternative energy
sources, and imposing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.
Longer range steps include fixing the fiscal policies undermining the
strength of the U.S. dollar, including by eliminating tax cuts for the
wealthiest among us, reducing the $12 billion a month spending bill in
Iraq, and closing outrageous tax loopholes than enable tax dodgers to
use offshore tax havens to avoid payment of taxes in the range of $100
billion each year.
We can fight back against exorbitantly high energy prices. But it
will take all our energy--and determination--to do it.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very disappointed that a minority
of Senators blocked the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, which puts
American consumers ahead of big oil companies and other corporate
interests.
This bill would prevent price gouging and market manipulation from
driving up the price of gas. The anti-price gouging language, based on
Senator Cantwell's bill that I cosponsored, would protect consumers
from price gouging by sellers and distributors of oil, gasoline, or
petroleum distillates during natural disasters and abnormal market
disruptions. As a cosponsor of the Oil and Gas Traders Oversight Act, I
also strongly support closing loopholes that allow traders using
overseas markets to secretively bid up the price of oil and saddle
Americans with the price at the gas pump.
Today's vote on the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 was an
opportunity to stand up to the OPEC cartel and force big oil to pay
their fair share. I have long supported the efforts of the senior
Senator from Wisconsin to make oil-producing and exporting cartels
illegal and make colluding oil-producing nations liable in U.S. court
for violations of antitrust law. Our oil companies can also be part of
the solution. This bill would have encouraged them to invest in clean,
affordable, and domestically produced renewable alternative fuels,
expanded refinery capacity and utilization, and renewable electricity
production.
Last year's Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy
Efficiency Act of 2007 put our Nation's energy policy on a new path:
one that encourages renewable energy, conservation of the resources we
have, and American innovation. But we have more work to do, and today's
vote is a step back in those efforts.
I will continue to support both short- and long-term solutions to our
Nation's energy needs that protect American consumers while working to
invest in renewable and alternative energies and break our addiction to
oil.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our
side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes.
Mrs. McCASKILL. I will speak for 5 minutes. I would appreciate it if
you would let me know when I have 1 minute.
Mr. President, you know this is not complicated. You would have to
not be walking around in the United States of America to not feel
incredible pressure at this moment. I feel so lucky to be in the
Senate, and I feel such a responsibility to communicate the pressure we
are all feeling from people who are hurting.
Let me run through a few facts.
Since 2002, profits for the five largest oil companies have
quadrupled. Let me say that again. Since 2002, profits have quadrupled.
Last year, ExxonMobil made $83,000 a minute in profit--$83,000 a
minute.
Now, are they using all this profit to invest in alternative fuels?
How about increasing refinery capacity? Oh, no, no. They have their
hand out to us. This is the nerve. Insanity is doing the same thing
over and over and thinking you are going to get a different result.
We are paying oil companies right now. This is the largest package of
corporate welfare this country has ever delivered. What nerve does it
take for us to give oil companies $17 billion in taxpayer money with
those kinds of profits?
This is like the ``twilight zone.'' This cannot be real. We cannot
honestly be standing here and saying to the American people: It is a
great idea for us to
[[Page 11916]]
keep giving them your money when they are making $83,000 a minute.
I was reading the paper this morning, and nothing is more expensive
than ads in the New York Times. I ask unanimous consent to show an ad
in the New York Times this morning.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. McCASKILL. OK. This is it: a two-page spread. Do you know what
this costs you? A half a million dollars. A half a million dollars
Exxon spent this morning. And guess what. They spent it yesterday
morning, and they are going to spend it tomorrow morning. It is a
series--all about what a great job they are doing for the American
people.
They are spending $2.5 million in the New York Times this week, while
Missourians in rural Missouri are scared they cannot go to work
anymore. They have no bus they can take. They have no metro they can
take. They are trying to figure out how they can drive to and from
work, how they can put food on the table, and these guys are spending
$2.5 million on PR. It is unbelievable.
We have given big oil, in 2004 and 2005, tax breaks worth over $17
billion over the next decade. What does the other side say? We need to
give them more. We have to pay them to increase refinery capacity.
Excuse me? We have to pay them--the taxpayers of this country? I do not
know how out of touch we could be. We are not asking for a lot. Just
take away the taxpayer money. We do not begrudge people profit.
Now, here is what is unbelievable. I do not know how this bill would
turn out if we debated it----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That Senator has used 4 minutes.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. President.
I do not know how this bill would turn out if we debated it honestly,
but I do know one thing. We have a choice in about 5 minutes. We can do
nothing or we can work as hard as we know how to do something. If the
choice--if the choice--is to do nothing, then I hope the people of this
country rise up and scream like they have never screamed before. How
dare us do nothing.
That is what they are about getting ready to vote on. They are going
to say: We are not going to even let you proceed to try to do something
about this problem. It takes a lot of nerve. It takes a lot of nerve.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I thank you.
I thank the Senator from Missouri for her comments. They were right
on.
I rise today to call for action by the Senate on an urgent problem
facing this country, facing the State of Montana: gas prices.
The national average now, we just found out last weekend, is $4 a
gallon. I remember when gas was $1.46. It was not that long ago. It was
before the Bush administration took over. That was before the war in
Iraq, before speculators and market manipulators spiraled out of
control, before that $17 billion Bush tax cut for our Nation's biggest
oil companies.
These gas prices hurt. They especially hurt hard-working people in
Montana and across rural America. In my State, nearly everybody has to
drive to work. There are not other options. We do not have a subway
system. We do not have other means of mass transit. Whether it is on a
tractor or behind the wheel of a truck, a lot of folks rely on
horsepower and the fuel to supply that horsepower to get their work
done.
Of course, high gas prices means high prices for consumer goods. It
means fewer jobs. Middle-class families are getting pinched hard by
these high gas prices. For low-income folks, high gas prices are
unbearable. They do not need to see headlines like in Newsweek this
week to know our economy is in trouble. People are already feeling it.
Yet we have seen no solutions from this administration.
I am not even convinced this administration considers rising gas
prices a problem. Earlier this year, a reporter asked President Bush
what advice he had to consumers facing $4 a gallon gas. He was visibly
surprised and asked the reporter where he had heard that.
Well, working folks and small businesses have felt the pain for some
time now. Our farmers all over rural America have known it for quite a
while. Our trucking and transportation industry has felt it hard for a
long time. The cost of diesel fuel that powers our tractors, our
combines, and our trucks that take food to the grocery stores hit $4
back in April. It is closing in on $5. Every working family and small
business and farmer and trucker is taking a hit--a big hit--on these
fuel prices.
That is why I am supporting these two packages today that go to the
root of the problems of high gas costs. They offer some solutions.
The Consumer-First Energy Act will go after commodity speculators who
are manipulating the market. It needs to be done. It will let the
Justice Department go after the illegal OPEC oil cartel in court. It
needs to be done. It will put a stop to the big tax giveaways the last
Congress gave to big oil, which needs to be done. It will protect
consumers from price colluders and price gougers. This needs to be
done.
This bill will immediately put a stop to the financial gimmicks that
have driven up the cost of oil past the laws of supply and demand. If
you do not think speculators are playing with the markets, and they are
having a big impact, let me remind you of the Enron collapse, the dot-
com bust, and the demise of the housing market. It is all happening in
oil right now.
When Wall Street investment banks faced trouble a couple months ago,
the Bush administration swiftly took action. But when American
consumers have to tap into their savings or run up their credit card
debt just to pay the price at the pump, the administration is nowhere
to be seen.
The Consumer-First Energy Act is about solutions. They are solutions
we need to invest in right now. We have the opportunity in the United
States to drill for oil in places that make sense--eastern Montana, the
western Dakotas, the Bakken field. And wouldn't you know, it is the
smaller companies--not the big companies--that are going after those
reserves. It is the smaller companies innovating, investing in the
future, boosting domestic oil production right now, working with the
folks in those regions, boosting rural economies.
My colleague, Senator Baucus, has again brought forward an energy tax
package that will help extend some of the most successful and effective
tax credits that are driving alternative energy development. He brought
a similar package forward last year, only to have it narrowly defeated.
I hope we have a different outcome this time because our future
energy system depends on new solutions, not old solutions. We have the
ideas and the ambition, but we need to get on with new innovations in
the marketplace.
It is time to resolve these energy costs and take a step toward
solving our energy problems. We have to work together, and I am
confident we can work together to find solutions to bring the costs
back down.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Cloture Motion
Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
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,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008.
Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon
Whitehouse, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patty Murray, Debbie
Stabenow, Benjamin L. Cardin, Daniel K. Akaka, Jack
Reed, Claire McCaskill, Christopher J. Dodd, Amy
Klobuchar, Patrick J. Leahy, Barbara A. Mikulski, Frank
R. Lautenberg, Carl Levin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call is waived.
[[Page 11917]]
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008,
shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 43, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 146 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--43
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Reid
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--6
Byrd
Clinton
Graham
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the
nays are 43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 3044.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The motion is pending.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, because the subway was broken, it made it
difficult for some Senators to make it here in time. We had to extend
the vote for quite a long period of time.
I have spoken to the Republican leader. I think we would be well
served by having the vote on the next cloture motion. We will vote only
on one of the judges now. We will come back after lunch and do the
others. I will work the time out with the Republican leader. Hopefully,
the first business we will conduct will be the votes on the other two
district court judges. We won't have time to do them this morning. I
will work with the Republican leader and we will come up with a time
and give everybody ample notice about when the next vote will occur.
I ask unanimous consent that we have the vote on the first judge, the
judge from Virginia, now, and that we then have the vote on the two
subsequent judges at a time to be determined by the majority leader in
consultation with the Republican leader.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana is
recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute to explain the next vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this vote is about jobs, energy, and
paying our Nation's bills. There may be times when delay does not have
a significant adverse impact. Today is not one of those days.
The bill before us is a good bill. It extends tax cuts that expired
last December.
Companies across America are deciding whether to renew research
contracts. Energy companies are deciding whether to buy and build wind
turbines. These decisions support jobs.
This bill encourages the search for new and clean energy sources.
Harnessing power from ocean waves. Capturing carbon emissions.
This bill also extends expiring individual provisions, including the
teacher expense deduction and the tuition deduction.
And the bill pays for itself with provisions that are not tax
increases. With gasoline topping $4 per gallon, the American people do
not want us to delay.
Is the bill perfect? No.
Will the Senate change it? Yes.
Let's get on with making those changes. I urge my colleagues to
support the motion to begin debate on this bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1
minute.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues not to give consent
to cloture at this time because there are a lot of matters in this bill
that ought not be in here. We have matters in here for trial attorneys,
and we have matters in here for Davis-Bacon.
We are talking about solving a housing crisis. This is not the way to
do it. We ought to give more consideration to it, and not granting
cloture is one way of giving greater consideration to what we are going
to do.
cloture motion
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, pursuant
to rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
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 motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy
and Job Creation Act of 2008.
Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Robert
Menendez, Kent Conrad, Daniel K. Inouye, Byron L.
Dorgan, Jon Tester, Richard Durbin, Patty Murray, Max
Baucus, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Maria Cantwell, Frank
R. Lautenberg, John F. Kerry, Blanche L. Lincoln, E.
Benjamin Nelson.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory
quorum call is waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy
and Job Creation Act of 2008, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 147 Leg.]
YEAS--50
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
[[Page 11918]]
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Corker
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--44
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wicker
NOT VOTING--6
Byrd
Clinton
Graham
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the
nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to join me in
voting to proceed to the tax extenders legislation on the floor. This
legislation represents a fiscally responsible and balanced approach to
ensure that necessary tax provisions for hardworking American families
and indispensable small businesses do not expire.
At a time when our economy teeters on the brink of recession--when
unemployment increased 5.5 percent last month--the biggest monthly jump
in 12 years--when gasoline at the pump is more than $4 a gallon and
climbing, when the cost of a dozen eggs has risen 38 percent in the
last year alone, when oil costs are set to reach $140 per barrel and
analysts are predicting a rise to $150 by July 4th, and when
foreclosures have hit historic levels--is there any question that the
American people expect--even demand, not just action but action leading
to results. We must forge together the results that address these
central issues facing the U.S. economy and the millions of Americans
who are anxiously awaiting action from leaders. And while Congress will
be forced to make difficult choices on some of these issues in the
coming months, this issue--whether to extend critical tax incentives
right now should be, frankly, a straightforward decision.
And now before us is legislation that would extend critical energy
tax credits--including the catalyst that caused a 45-percent growth in
wind energy last year and energy efficiency tax credits that creates an
incentive to reduce energy demand. And we are really debating this
question when we saw oil rise by $11 per barrel in a single day to
$139? To be blunt, this country must wake up and recognize the
ramifications of an energy crisis that we have not addressed for 30
years--and counting. Dr. Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America
has estimated that from 2002 to 2008 annual household expenditures on
energy increased from about $2,600 to an astonishing $5,300. The impact
in Maine, where 80 percent of households use heating oil to get through
a winter, is even worse. Last year at this time, prices were at a
challenging $2.70 a gallon--for the average Mainer who goes through
1,000 gallons of oil that is $2,700. The price now is $4.70 meaning
that it will cost a Mainer $4,700 just to stay warm not even
considering gasoline costs. That is the difference between a burden and
a crisis.
Indeed, the energy efficiency tax incentives and the renewable
production tax credit--critical vehicles for moving our country to self
sufficiency--are set to expire at the end of this year and some have
already expired at the beginning of this year. This is the antithesis
of the energy policy that our nation must be employing to address
rising energy costs.
Energy efficiency is singlehandedly the most effective investment
that our country can make to address the calamity of our energy policy.
It is derelict that we would allow energy efficiency tax credits to
expire. In fact, some tax credits have already expired, and as a
result, there are currently no incentives to purchase efficient
furnaces. At a time when Americans are worried about heating bills in
June, we must provide the assistance to allow Americans to invest in
energy efficient products that will reduce our collective demand for
energy, and save Americans money.
For example, included in this package is a $300 tax credit to
purchase a high efficiency oil furnace, which would save over $180 in
annual savings for an average home--according to calculations based on
Department of Energy data and recent home heating prices. In addition,
this includes an extension of a tax credit for highly efficient natural
gas furnaces that saves an individual $100 per year. However, this tax
credit ended at the beginning of this year--right when oil prices began
their historic climb.
For businesses that are competing against countries that subsidize
oil the situation is simply untenable. Two weeks ago, Katahdin Paper
Company announced that the cost of oil used to run its boilers has
caused the company to consider closing the mill's doors. Now, talks are
under way to find alternative solutions to preserve the mill's
operations and its accompanying jobs, but make no mistake; we are at
the tipping point where our economy could well be in ruins directly as
a result of high energy costs.
With jobs being lost because of high energy costs, it is crucial that
we invest in renewable energy jobs--that will put our economy back to
work and invest in secure energy future. Indeed over one hundred
thousand Americans could be put to work in 2008 if clean energy
production tax credits were extended. However, because the incentives
are set to expire this year, renewable energy companies are already
reporting a precipitous decrease in investment due to uncertainty.
Projects currently underway may soon be mothballed. Clean energy
incentives for energy efficient buildings, appliances and other
technologies, as well as additional funding for weatherizing homes,
would similarly serve to stimulate 2008 economic consumption, lower
residential energy costs, and generate new manufacturing and
construction jobs. It is irresponsible to allow a bright spot in our
economy, the renewable energy industry and energy efficiency
industries, to falter, when the product of these industries are so
essential to the future of this country.
Failing to act on these crucial incentives could choke off promising
business investment in 2008 and miss an opportunity to address high
energy costs, a critical contributor to sinking consumer confidence and
our Nation's long-term economic challenges. Extending these expiring
clean energy tax credits will help ensure a stronger, more stable
environment for new investments and ensure continued robust growth in a
bright spot in an otherwise slowing economy. This bill presents another
opportunity to raise the bar for our future domestic energy systems and
energy efficiencies, benefitting our economy, our health, our
environment, and our national security.
Not only does the legislation address these critical energy tax
provisions, but also extends relief for lower and middle-income
Americans, as well as small businesses. In particular, there are a
number of provisions that I have championed that have been included by
the House legislation and Chairman Baucus' amendment.
Fed Chairman Bernanke testified before the House Budget Committee
earlier this year that, ``a fiscal stimulus package should be
implemented quickly and structured so that its effects on aggregate
spending are felt as much as possible within the next twelve months or
so.'' Without a doubt, one way to affect spending and help working
Americans meet the challenges ahead of us and provide for the families
is providing a tax rebate. Another measure that Senator Lincoln and I
have long championed would enable more hard-
[[Page 11919]]
working, low-income families to receive the refundable child credit by
reducing the income threshold for the refundable credit to $10,000 and
deindexing it from inflation just as it originally passed the Senate in
2001.
The consequences of inaction are serious for low-income Americans
living paycheck-to-paycheck, and our proposal will ensure that those
low-income, hard-working families that benefit from this credit the
most receive it. And, I am very pleased that the House included a
version of our proposal, one in which, I might add, would already be
putting money in people's pockets had it already been enacted into law
providing further economic stimulus during these challenging times.
To ensure that much needed capital investment reaches all corners of
the country, the extenders package rightly includes an extension of the
new markets tax credit. This program has proven extremely successful in
encouraging investment and spurring growth in impoverished areas all
across the country, both rural and urban. Senator Rockefeller and I
have championed extending this vital incentive with the New Markets Tax
Credit Extension Act, S. 1239, a bill that enjoys the bipartisan
support of 27 cosponsors.
To provide relief and equity to our Nation's 1.5 million retail
establishments, most of which have less than five employees, I have
introduced with Senators Lincoln, Kerry, and Hutchison. This provision
would reduce from 39 to 15 years the depreciable life of improvements
that are made to retail stores that are owned by the retailer. If the
motion to proceed passes, I believe that we will have an opportunity to
address this inequity given the support for this provision expressed by
the chairman of the Finance Committee.
In 2004, I fought for the inclusion of incentives to stop the flow of
film productions offshore into the FSC-ETI bill. Consequently, I was
very pleased to see the House include an extension of this vital
incentive for film production companies planning whether and where to
film. The House also included a critical modification to the incentive.
Specifically, it would remove the $15 million cap on film productions
eligible for the incentive and instead limiting the deduction to the
first $15 million as the provision was originally passed in the Senate
before being amended in conference. This is an issue that I have also
worked on with my good friend, the senior Senator from Arkansas, and am
so pleased with this provisions inclusion.
So as we can see, this bill provides the Senate an opportunity to
consider a number of provisions that are vital in helping our economy
weather the recent downturn it is experiencing. The provisions that I
have just outlined will unleash renewable energy projects creating
jobs, provided targeted tax relief to low-income working families
struggling to pay for the high cost of food and fuel, encourage an
infusion of capital into rural and urban communities, provide tax
incentives for retail businesses looking to grow their business, and
help keep the jobs associated with film production within our borders.
Not to mention, the tax extenders bill also includes provisions such as
the R&D tax credit, the tuition deduction and the teachers classroom
expenses deduction that are widely supported on both sides of the
aisle.
Clearly, this tax extenders package is critical to Congress's ongoing
efforts to reverse the economic slowdown that our Nation is facing. For
the fifth month this year, U.S. employers have cut jobs including
49,000 in the month of May alone. The number of Americans filing first-
time claims for unemployment benefits is at its highest level since
October of 2004 and the increase in the rate was the largest since
1986.
The Senate should move forward on extending expiring tax relief.
There are some aspects of the House bill that I believe should be
improved upon, such as providing an AMT patch to stop the expansion of
this mass tax. Some on the other side of the aisle believe we should at
least attempt to pay for tax relief, a position I happen to agree with.
Others on my side of the aisle believe that shouldn't continue to be a
maintenance Congress, continually passing short-term temporary tax
relief, a position that I also happen to agree with.
There are differences of opinion, but what is the Senate afraid of?
What are we afraid of? To debate and to vote on various positions? Some
of those issues and positions I would disagree with. But does that mean
to say the Senate cannot withstand the conflicting views of various
Members of the Senate? It is not unheard of, that both sides of the
political aisle will have differing views. So, I would urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the motion to proceed. If the
motion succeeds, I am hopeful that we can do what the Senate ought to
do--that is find some common ground on an amendment process and a way
forward to finally dispose of the legislation and enact this
legislation sooner rather than later.
I came to this discussion to work on this issue, to debate, which is
consistent with the traditions and principles of this institution,
which has been its hallmark. That is why it has been considered the
greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, it is not
living up to that expectation or characterization, regrettably.
Let's have an open and unfettered debate, which is consistent with
this institution that is predicated on our Founding Fathers' vision of
an institution based on accommodation and consensus. You have to get 60
votes. So let's work it out. Let's clear this first hurdle and proceed
to the bill. My side of the aisle will still have another 60 vote
threshold to ensure that their concerns are heard.
The Senate is based on consensus. It is based on compromise. It is
based on conciliation. It is based on the fact that you have to develop
cooperation in order to get anything done. It is not unusual. If
historically we took the position: You missed your chance because there
are disparate views, so that there would be no opportunity to further
discuss or negotiate--we missed our chance? Are we talking about
scoring political points? Are we talking about what is the best tax
policy for this country?
I am concerned we are taking a political U-turn away from the message
in the last election. I was in that last election. I heard loudly and
clearly. I don't blame the people of Maine or across this country for
their deep-seated frustration. They are right. There was too much
partisanship and too much polarization.
What's required now is leadership. We need leadership for this
country. They are thirsting for a strong leadership, an honorable
leadership that leads us to a common goal. No one expected unanimity in
the Senate but we would give integrity to this process to allow it to
work and not cynically say who is winning and who is losing today
politically. We are not shedding the political past. We have made a
political U-turn. We are returning to it.
This isn't about party labels. This isn't whether it is good for
Republicans or good for Democrats. It is what is good for America. It
is not about red States and blue States. It is about the red, white,
and blue. Fact is that with every day that we delay, there are millions
of taxpayers in all 50 States who literally will pay the price for our
inaction.
I hope we can find a way. What could be of higher priority than to be
able to debate and to vote on our respective positions, to give a vote
on AMT relief and expiring tax provisions that is so important that a
majority of Senators support? Is there anyone in this Chamber who does
not think we should extend expiring tax relief?? I know we can build
the threshold for the 60. It is imperative we do it. It is inexcusable,
frankly, that on the process for debating, we cannot reach an
agreement. We are failing the American people on a colossal scale. We
are held up by arcane procedural measures that could be worked out, if
only we reached across the political aisle.
If my remarks sound familiar, then well they should because
regrettably I said much the same thing in February of last year at the
start of this Congress on another pressing issue of our
[[Page 11920]]
time. Sadly as we now approach the end of the first session of the
110th Congress, things seemed to have not changed very much. I would
hope when we finally adjourn after hopefully extending this critical
tax relief that each and every one of us will return to our homes and
when the clock strikes midnight on December 31, that we all make a New
Years resolution to make the next Congress a more productive session
with Members reaching across the aisle looking for consensus. If we do
not, there is one thing that is for certain; the American public is
watching.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
NOMINATION OF MARK STEVEN DAVIS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following
nomination, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of Mark Steven Davis, of
Virginia, to be United States district judge for the Eastern District
of Virginia.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. We now have 10 minutes of debate
equally divided between the chairman and the ranking member. Who yields
time?
If no one yields time, time will be charged equally to both sides.
The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, may I ask for 1 minute from the ranking
member.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, my thanks to the committee leaders for
bringing forward the nominations to the Senate of Judge Greg Kays and
Stephen Limbaugh to be Federal district court judges for the Western
and Eastern District Courts of Missouri. Both Judge Kays and Judge
Limbaugh are outstanding nominees for the Federal bench. They share
bipartisan support, have fine legal minds, long records of public
service, and represent the values and character of my Missouri
constituents.
Both men's modesty matches the modest size of their Midwestern
hometowns. But as we have seen so many times in our history, great men,
men of learning, men of intellect and excellence, come from modest
places.
One should not doubt this to be the case. Values of fairness,
service, kindness, community, learning, self-reliance, and personal
responsibility are those that we value in our constituents, in our
small-town communities, and we should value in our judges. I think this
confirmation process has succeeded in producing two such men.
I thank the Chair, I thank my ranking member, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have spoken to the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee and to the Republican leader. We will enter a
formal unanimous consent for the Record at a subsequent time, but it
appears at this time we will have a vote on one of the remaining two
judges at 3:30, and the Judiciary Committee chair, Senator Leahy, has
agreed we will not have to vote on the second one. So there will be one
vote on or about 3:30 this afternoon.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on the leader's
time?
I wanted to have a rollcall on this one, and do the other two at
whatever time the leader prefers by voice vote.
Mr. REID. I thank the Senator very much. That is wonderful. We can do
those before lunch, then.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record the resumes of these three candidates. They were voted
out unanimously by voice vote of the committee, and I think their
confirmation is assured.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mark Steven Davis
United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia
Birth: 1962, Portsmouth, Virginia.
Legal Residence: Portsmouth, Virginia.
Education: Longwood University, 1980-1982; no degree;
University of Virginia, 1982-1984; B.A., May 1984; Washington
and Lee University School of Law; J.D., May 1988.
Primary Employment:
Staff Assistant, U.S. Senator John W. Warner, 1984-1985.
Law Clerk to Hon. John A. MacKenzie, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Virginia, 1988-1989.
Law Firm of McGuire Woods LLP: Associate, 1989-1996;
Partner, 1996-1998.
Partner, Law Firm of Carr & Porter LLC (no longer in
existence), 1998-2003.
Judge, Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia (Portsmouth
Circuit Court), 2003-Present; Chief Judge, July 2006-Present.
Selected Activities:
Virginia State Bar, 1988-Present: Litigation Section Young
Lawyers Committee, 1992-1996.
Board of Visitors, Regent University School of Law, 2004-
Present.
American Bar Association, 1989-1993.
Federal Bar Association, 1990-1998.
Virginia Bar Association, 1989-Present.
James Kent American Inn of Court, 2005-Present: Pupilage
Team Leader, 2007.
Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel Commission: Commissioner,
1999-2003; Secretary/Treasurer, 2000-2003.
Virginia International Terminals, Inc.: Board of Directors,
2000-2003; Secretary and Executive Committee, 2002-2003;
Audit Committee, 2000-2003.
Recipient, Top 40 Under 40, Dolan's Virginia Business
Observer Newspaper, 2001.
Recipient, Legal Elite Listing, Virginia Business Magazine,
2002.
ABA Rating: Unanimous ``Well Qualified.''
David Gregory Kays
United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri
Birth: 1962, Kansas City, Missouri.
Legal Residence: Missouri.
Education: No degree, Drury University, 1981-1982; B.S.,
Southwest Missouri State University, 1985; J.D., University
of Arkansas School of Law, 1988.
Primary Employment: Attorney, Miller and Hutson Law Firm,
1988-1989. Assistant Public Defender, Office of the Special
Public Defender, 8/1989-12/1989. Prosecutor, Laclede County
Prosecuting Attorney's Office: Assistant Prosecuting
Attorney, 1988-1989; Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney,
1989-1991; Prosecuting Attorney, 1991-1995. City Attorney,
Lebanon, Missouri, 1992-1994. Judge, State of Missouri:
Associate Circuit Judge, Laclede County Circuit Court, 1995-
2004; Presiding Circuit Court Judge, 26th Judicial District,
2005-present.
Selected Activities: Board Chairman, First Christian
Church, 2007-present; Member, Missouri Task Force on
Alternative Sentencing, 2006-2007; Certificate Recipient,
National Judicial College, 2007; Recipient, Supreme Court of
Missouri Permancy Awards, 2006 and 2007; Adjunct Instructor,
Drury University, 1992-2004; Member, Laclede County Bar
Association: President, 1992; Member, Missouri Bar
Association.
ABA Rating: Substantial majority ``Qualified''/ Minority
``Not Qualified.''
Stephen Nathaniel Limbaugh, Jr.
united states district judge for the eastern district of missouri
Birth: 1952; Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Legal Residence: Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Education: B.A., Southern Methodist University, December
1973; J.D., Southern Methodist University School of Law,
December 1976; Masters of Law in the Judicial Process,
University of Virginia School of Law, May 1998.
Primary Employment: Associate, Limbaugh, Limbaugh &
Russell, 1977-1978; Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Office of
Prosecuting Attorney, Jackson, Missouri, 1978; Prosecuting
Attorney, Office of Prosecuting Attorney, Jackson, Missouri,
1979-1982; Shareholder/Partner, Limbaugh, Limbaugh, Russell &
Syler, P.C., 1983-1987; Circuit Judge, 32nd Judicial Circuit
of Missouri, 1987-1992; Supreme Court Judge, Supreme Court of
Missouri, 1992-Present: Chief Justice, 2001-2003.
Selected Activities: Missouri Bar, 1977-Present: Fellow,
Missouri Bar Foundation, 1997-Present (Board member, 2001-
2003). American Bar Association, 1977-Present: Life Fellow,
American Bar Foundation; Litigation Section, 1985-Present;
Judicial Administration Division, 1987-Present. The
Federalist Society, 1993-Present. Judicial Conference of
Missouri, 1987-Present: Legislative Steering Committee, 1989-
1991; Executive Council, 1999-2003; Presiding Officer, 2001-
2003. Supreme Court of Missouri Committees: Chair, Commission
on Judicial Dept. Education, 1999-2001, 2005-Present.
Appellate Judicial Commission for the Missouri Nonpartisan
Court Plan: Chair, 2001-2003. State Historical Society of
Missouri: Board of Trustees, 2005-Present; First Vice
President, 2007-Present. Life Regent, National Eagle Scout
Association. Political Advocacy and Legislative Achievement
Award, Adoption and Foster Care Coalition of Missouri, 2001.
Distinguished Alumnus Award for Judicial Service, SMU Dedman
School of Law, 2007.
[[Page 11921]]
ABA Rating: Unanimous ``Well Qualified.''
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of an outstanding
Virginian, the Honorable Mark S. Davis, who has been nominated by the
President to serve as an article III judge on the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia. I am pleased to note that Judge
Davis also enjoys the strong support of my colleague, Senator Webb.
Judge Davis has been nominated to fill the seat that was vacated by
Judge T. S. Ellis, III, who has served as an active judge in the
Eastern District of Virginia for more than 19 years.
I have had the privilege of knowing Mark Davis for more than two
decades. He worked as an intern in my office while attending the
University of Virginia, and then later, in 1984, he began his
professional career as a staff assistant in my office before he went to
law school. After earning his J. D. from the Washington & Lee
University School of Law in 1988, he served as a law clerk for the
Honorable John MacKenzie on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.
Subsequent to his clerkship, he entered private legal practice, as a
litigation attorney on cases before both Federal and State courts in
several areas, including tort, maritime, and municipal and employment
law. In 2003, the Virginia General Assembly unanimously confirmed him
to serve as a judge on the Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia in
Portsmouth, VA; today, he serves as chief judge of this five-judge
circuit.
In my view, Judge Davis is eminently qualified to serve on the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In addition to
having the support of his home state Senators, he also received the
highest recommendation of the Virginia State bar and the American Bar
Association.
I thank the Judiciary Committee for favorably reporting this
exemplary nominee to the full Senate, and I urge my colleagues to vote
to confirm him.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, today it is my distinct pleasure to offer my
support along with my colleague Senator Warner for the nomination of
Judge Mark Davis to be a judge on the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.
The career of this nominee is impressive. Judge Davis is regarded as
a patient, thoughtful individual who exhibits the highest degree of
ethical conduct and professionalism. After graduating law school, Judge
Davis began his legal career as a law clerk to Judge John A. MacKenzie
who served as judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, 1988-1989. In 1989, Judge Davis joined McGuire Woods, LLP,
where he worked as a partner from 1996 until 1998. Judge Davis has also
worked as partner at Carr & Porter LLC, 1998-2003. Since 2003, Judge
Davis has served on the Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia, and has
been the chief judge since 2006.
The Virginia Bar Association rated Judge Davis as ``highly
qualified.'' Judge Davis's written opinions reflect his keen intellect,
and the extent to which he values communicating his reasoning to
counsel and litigants. Further, Judge Davis is active in myriad
community and civic organizations. Judge Davis received his B.A. in
government from the University of Virginia in 1984, and his J.D. from
Washington and Lee University School of Law in 1988.
The Constitution assigns a critically important role to the Senate in
the advice and consent process related to nominations for the Federal
judiciary. These judgeships are lifetime appointments, and Virginians
expect me and Senator Warner to take very seriously our constitutional
duties. It is essential that the nominee be respectful of the
Constitution, impartial, and balanced toward those appearing before him
or her.
In light of these criteria, Senator Warner and I undertook a careful
and deliberative process to find the most qualified judicial nominees.
Our collaboration involved a thorough records review and rigorous
interviews. We are of the opinion that Judge Davis meets these high
standards. He was on the joint list of recommended judicial nominees
submitted to President Bush last year. We are pleased that President
Bush has chosen to respect our diligent bipartisan work.
I want to thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to make these
remarks about this outstanding Virginian. In particular, I want to
express my gratitude for the expeditious way the Senate has moved the
nomination of Judge Davis through the process during the 110th
Congress. Again, it is with pride that I join Senator Warner in
commending Judge Mark Davis to each of my colleagues in the Senate; and
I ask my fellow Senators to vote to confirm his nomination to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I wish to use the balance of my time to
talk about the procedures on the Energy bill.
I spoke yesterday about the problem created by the so-called
procedure of filling the tree. It is my hope that we will return to the
Energy bill and we will have an opportunity to offer amendments on the
bill--the global warming bill, I should specify. Last week, I filed a
series of amendments, and I hope we will return to the bill and will
not have the procedure of filling the tree thwart the opportunity for
Senators to offer amendments.
As I spoke at some length yesterday, we have devolved in this body
into a procedure where the trademark of the Senate--that is, where a
Senator is able to offer virtually any amendment on any matter at any
time--has been undercut. This has been a practice which has been
growing but was used not at all in bygone years. Senator Mitchell then
used it 9 times, Senator Lott matched him with 9, Senator Frist matched
him with 9, and Senator Reid has now used it 12 times.
Regrettably, when the tree is filled--an arcane practice not
understood very broadly--and then cloture is not invoked, people think
that Republicans are opposed to considering global warming. The fact is
that some 32 Republicans voted for cloture on the motion to proceed. So
it is my hope we will have an opportunity to debate this very important
subject and that there will be procedural steps taken so amendments can
be offered. The tradition of the Senate in the past has been to have
legislation offered, to debate, and if people are opposed, to
filibuster, and to have the issues considered. But we have found in
modern days that bills involving very important matters, such as the
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Senate bill 1843, got very short shrift indeed.
So it is my hope we will change the procedures.
I filed a resolution with the Rules Committee in February of 2007 to
have a change in the rules, but in the interim I hope we can alter our
procedures to take up these very important amendments.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
nomination.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the Senate will confirm three more
nominations for lifetime appointments to the Federal bench.
The first nomination we consider is that of Mark Davis of Virginia to
fill a vacancy in the Eastern District of Virginia, and I commend the
Virginia Senators on this nomination. After years of controversial
nominations, Senators Warner and Webb have worked successfully with the
White House on a series of recent nominations for district and circuit
court seats, including that of Judge G. Steven Agee of Virginia, who
was confirmed to a seat on the Fourth Circuit last month.
I was pleased to accommodate Senator Bond's request that we proceed
promptly in committee to consider the nominations of David Kays and
Stephen Limbaugh to vacancies in the Western and Eastern Districts of
Missouri. Both nominees have the support of Senator McCaskill. I wish
Justice Ronnie White, who went on to become Missouri's first African-
American chief
[[Page 11922]]
justice, had received similar consideration when President Clinton
nominated him to the Eastern District of Missouri. Instead, more than 2
years after he was nominated, and 2\1/2\ months after he was reported
out of the Judiciary Committee for a second time, his nomination was
voted down on a party line vote, not a single Republican Senator voting
to confirm him. I also recall many of President Clinton's judicial
nominees who were stalled because of anonymous Republican objections to
their politics or their practice area. One of the two nominees from
Missouri that we consider today is Rush Limbaugh's cousin. A similar
lineage would have resulted in a pocket filibuster when the Senate was
controlled by a Republican majority during the Clinton administration.
So today, in contrast to the treatment of President Clinton's nominees,
we proceed to consider these two nominations.
I noted last week the sudden concern of the minority leader for
district court nominations. Perhaps he did not have a chance to see my
statement from earlier in the week in which I noted that with
Republican cooperation, we have the opportunity this work period
confirm five nominees already reported favorably by the Judiciary
Committee? Of course, today we would have more than those five
nominations on the Senate's Executive Calendar had Republicans not
stalled this President's nominations of Judge Helene White and Ray
Kethledge to the Sixth Circuit, and the nomination of Stephen Murphy to
the Eastern District of Michigan. As I said last week, with cooperation
from across the aisle, the Senate is poised to have confirmed four
circuit court judges and 11 district court judges before the Fourth of
July recess, confirming a total of 15 lifetime appointments.
I recall Senator Specter's frustration when he was chairman with a
Republican majority at the end of the last Congress, and Republican
holds prevented the confirmation of 14 district court nominations.
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had worked hard to expedite the
nominations at the end of the last Congress. Many of them were for
vacancies deemed judicial emergencies, including three in one Federal
district in Michigan where several judges of senior status--one over 90
years old--continued to carry heavy caseloads to ensure that justice
was administered in that district. Now, after the successful efforts of
the Senators from Michigan in conjunction with the White House, I hope
Republicans will not object to filling three more judicial emergency
vacancies in Michigan.
The complaints by the minority leader and his party about district
court nominations ring as hollow as their complaints that Senate
Democrats did not make best efforts to meet the goal he and the
majority leader set of moving three circuit court nominations by
Memorial Day. As at the end of the last Congress with those 14 district
court nominations, Republicans resisted expediting the committee's
consideration of the Michigan nominations before Memorial Day. They
badgered the nominees, and sent scores of written follow up questions.
At the May 7 hearing, the Republicans chose to complain that the
committee was moving too fast, before the committee had received
updated ABA ratings on the nominations. They pressed Judge White with
scores of questions, failing to pose those same questions to Mr.
Kethledge, a candidate for the same circuit. They demanded an extremely
rare closed hearing to further question Judge White. Given their
actions and their resistance to the White House's package of
nominations--nominations made by this President--they made it
impossible for the Committee to consider and report the Michigan
nominations before the Memorial Day recess.
We have now received the updated ABA rating for Judge White's
nomination. She received a well qualified rating. That did not come as
any surprise. She has served ably on the Michigan state appellate
courts and acquired additional experience in the decade since she was
nominated by President Clinton and the Republican Senate majority
refused to consider her nomination.
Ultimately, the Republican-led Senate left open five vacancies on the
Fourth Circuit and four on the Sixth Circuit. With the Agee
confirmation last month, we have already reduced vacancies on the
Fourth Circuit to less than there were at the end of the Clinton
administration, when a Republican-controlled Senate had refused to
consider any nominees to that circuit during the last 2 years of the
Clinton Presidency. If Republicans cooperate in considering the
Michigan nominees, we will have filled every vacancy in the Sixth
Circuit. Overall, when Republicans ran the Senate and were stalling
consideration of President Clinton's nominees, circuit vacancies rose
from 11 to 26, and it reached 32 during the transition to President
Bush. We are in position to reduce circuit vacancies by three-quarters,
to an historic low.
In contrast to the Republican Senate majority that used the Clinton
years to more than double circuit court vacancies around the country,
the Senate has already reduced circuit court vacancies by almost two-
thirds, We are poised to complete Senate consideration of the two Sixth
Circuit nominations. If the Republican minority allows that progress,
yet another circuit will be without any vacancies. In fact, we would
reduce the total number of circuit court vacancies across the Nation to
single digits for the first time in decades.
If instead we focus on the controversial nominations as the
Republicans want, we run the risk of embroiling the committee and the
Senate in months of debate, foreclosing the opportunity to make
progress where we can. We saw what happened with our last contentious
nomination--that of Leslie Southwick. It took 5\1/2\ months from the
time of the hearing to his confirmation.
The minority leader and the Wall Street Journal continue to point to
the confirmation of 15 circuit judges in 1999 and 2000. Sometimes, the
number is 17. Of course, their mythical ``statistical average'' of
selected years ignores the crises the Republicans had created by not
considering circuit nominees in 1996, 1997 and 1998, the fact that they
refused to confirm a single circuit nominee during the entire 1996
session, the fact that they returned 17 circuit court nominees without
action to the White House in 2000, the public criticism of Chief
Justice Rehnquist that helped moderate their stalling and the fact that
they more than doubled circuit court vacancies while pocket
filibustering Clinton nominees.
The minority leader only reaches this mythical statistical by taking
advantage of the high confirmation numbers of Democratic-led Senates
confirming the nominees of President Reagan and the first President
Bush. They ignore their own record of doubling vacancies during the
Clinton administration. They do not like to recall that during the 1996
session, when a Republican majority controlled the Senate during a
Presidential election year, they refused to confirm any circuit court
judges at all--not one. Their practice of pocket filibustering
President Clinton's judicial nominees led Chief Justice Rehnquist,
hardly a Democratic partisan, to criticize them publicly. Even he was
appalled by the actions of the Republican Senate majority. In his 1996
Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, he wrote:
Because the number of judges confirmed in 1996 was low in
comparison to the number confirmed in preceding years, the
vacancy rate is beginning to climb. When the 104th Congress
adjourned in 1996, 17 new judges had been appointed and 28
nominations had not been acted upon. Fortunately, a
dependable corps of senior judges contributes significantly
to easing the impact of unfilled judgeships. It is hoped that
the Administration and Congress will continue to recognize
that filling judicial vacancies is crucial to the fair and
effective administration of justice.
When that shot across the bow did not lead the Republican Senate
majority to reverse course, Chief Justice Rehnquist spoke up, again, in
his 1997 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary. It was a salvo from
a Republican Chief Justice critical of the Republican Senate
leadership:
Currently, 82 of the 846 Article III judicial offices in
the Federal Judiciary--almost one out of every ten--are
vacant. Twenty-six of the vacancies have been in existence
for 18 months or longer and on that basis constitute what are
called ``judicial emergencies.'' In the Court of Appeals for
the
[[Page 11923]]
Ninth Circuit, the percentage of vacancies is particularly
troubling, with over one-third of its seats empty.
Judicial vacancies can contribute to a backlog of cases,
undue delays in civil cases, and stopgap measures to shift
judicial personnel where they are most needed. Vacancies
cannot remain at such high levels indefinitely without
eroding the quality of justice that traditionally has been
associated with the Federal Judiciary. Fortunately for the
Judiciary, a dependable corps of senior judges has
contributed significantly to easing the impact of unfilled
judgeships.
It was only after the scorching criticism by a Republican Chief
Justice that the Republican Senate majority modified its approach in
order to allow some of the nominations that had been held back for
years to finally proceed. Having built up scores of vacancies, some
were allowed to be filled while the Republican Senate majority
carefully kept vacant circuit court positions to be filled by President
Clinton's successor. It is in that context that Republican claims of
magnanimity must be seen for what it was. It is in that context that
the eight circuit confirmations in 2000 must be evaluated while the
Republican Senate majority returned 17 circuit nominations to President
Clinton at the end of that session without action.
In stark contrast, the Democratic Senate majority has worked steadily
and steadfastly to lower vacancies and make progress, and we have.
I have placed the two Michigan Sixth Circuit nominations on the
agenda for the committee's business meeting this week. With cooperation
from the Republicans, we can consider and vote on these nominations at
that time. That should provide the Senate with the opportunity to
consider them before the Fourth of July recess, bringing to four the
number of circuit court nominees confirmed this year. Four would meet
the Republican average for 1996 and 2000, and beat their total in the
1996 session by four.
The history is clear. On June 1, 2000, when a Republican Senate
majority was considering the judicial nominees of a Democratic
President in a Presidential election year, there were 66 judicial
vacancies. Twenty were circuit court vacancies, and 46 were district
court vacancies. Those vacancies were the result of years of Republican
pocket filibusters of judicial nominations. This year, by comparison
there are just 47 total vacancies with only 11 circuit vacancies and 36
district court vacancies. After today, there will be just 44 total
vacancies. If we can continue to make progress this month, the current
vacancies could be reduced to fewer than 40, with only 9 circuit court
vacancies and 30 district court vacancies.
When Republicans were busy pocket filibustering Clinton nominees,
Federal judicial vacancies grew to more than 100, with more than 30
circuit vacancies.
When I became Chairman in the summer of 2001, we quickly--and
dramatically--lowered vacancies. The 100 nominations we confirmed in
only 17 months, while working with a most uncooperative White House,
reduced vacancies by 45 percent.
After the four intervening years of a Republican Senate majority,
vacancies remained about level.
It is the Democratic Senate majority that has again worked hard to
lower them in this Congress. We have gone from more than 110 vacancies
to less than 50 and are heading to less than 40. With respect to
Federal circuit court vacancies, we have reversed course from the days
during which the Republican Senate majority more than doubled circuit
vacancies. It bears repeating--circuit vacancies have been reduced by
almost two-thirds and have not been this low since 1996, when the
Republican tactics to slow judicial confirmations began in earnest.
Consider for a moment the numbers: After another productive month,
just 9 of the 178 authorized circuit court judgeships will remain
vacant--just 9--a vacancy rate down from 18 percent to just 5 percent.
With 168 active appellate judges and 104 senior status judges serving
on the Federal Courts of Appeals, there are 272 circuit court judges. I
expect that is the most in our history.
The President has not nominated anyone to 16 of the current judicial
vacancies. He has refused since 2004 to work with the California
Senators on a successor to Judge Trott on the Ninth Circuit. The
district court vacancies without nominees span from those that arose in
Mississippi and Michigan in 2006, to several from 2007 in Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Indiana and the District of Columbia, to others that arose
earlier this year in Kansas, Virginia, Washington, and several in
Colorado and Pennsylvania.
Disputes over a handful of controversial judicial nominations have
wasted valuable time that could be spent on the real priorities of
every American. I have sought, instead, to make progress where we can.
The result is the significant reduction in judicial vacancies.
In fact, our work has led to a reduction in vacancies in nearly ever
circuit. Both the Second and Fifth Circuits had circuit-wide
emergencies due to the multiple simultaneous vacancies during the
Clinton years with Republicans in control of the Senate. Both the
Second Circuit and the Fifth Circuit now are without a single vacancy.
We have already succeeded in lowering vacancies in the Second Circuit,
the Fourth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Eighth
Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, the Tenth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit,
the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. Circuits with no current
vacancies include the Seventh Circuit, the Eighth Circuit, the Tenth
Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit and the Federal Circuit. When we are
allowed to proceed with President Bush's nominations of Judge White and
Ray Kethledge to the Sixth Circuit, it will join that list of Federal
circuits without a single vacancy.
My approach has been consistent throughout my chairmanships during
the Bush Presidency. The results have been positive. Last year, the
Judiciary Committee favorably reported 40 judicial nominations to the
Senate and all 40 were confirmed. That was more than had been confirmed
in any of the three preceding years when a Republican chairman and
Republican Senate majority managed the process.
Despite this progress, of course, some partisans seem determined to
provoke an election year fight over nominations. The press accounts are
filled with threats of Republican reprisals. The May 14 issue of Roll
Call boasted the following headline: ``GOP Itching for Fight Over
Judges; Reid's Pledge to Move Three Before Recess Fails to Appease
Minority.'' Then in a recent article in The Washington Times, we read
that the Republican fixation on judges is part of an effort to bolster
Senator McCain's standing among conservatives. There seem to be no
steps we could take to satisfy Senate Republicans on nominations,
because they are using it as a partisan issue to rev up their partisan
political base.
The Republican effort to create an issue over judicial confirmations
is sorely misplaced. Last month we experienced the greatest rise in
unemployment in a single month in over two decades, bringing the total
job losses for the first 5 consecutive months of this year to over
325,000. Americans are now facing increasing burdens from the soaring
price of gas, high food prices, rising unemployment and a home mortgage
foreclosure and credit crisis.
This year we have seen the worst plunge in new homes sales in two
decades. The press reported that new home sales fell 8.5 percent in
March, the slowest sales pace since October 1991, and the median price
of a home sold dropped 13.3 percent compared to the previous year. That
was the biggest year-over-year price decline in four decades. You would
have to go back to July 1970 to find a larger decline.
Unfortunately, this bad economic news for hard-working Americans is
nothing new under the Bush administration. During the Bush
administration, unemployment is up more than 20 percent and trillions
of dollars in budget surplus have been turned into trillions of dollars
of debt, with an annual budget deficit of hundreds of millions of
dollars. Last week, the price of oil soared to nearly $139 a barrel,
nearly twice what it was at this time last year. When President Bush
took office, the price of gas was $1.42 a gallon. Today, it is at an
all-time high of over $4.00 a gallon.
[[Page 11924]]
According to a recent poll, 81 percent of Americans today believe
that our country is headed in the wrong direction. It costs more than
$1 billion a day--$1 billion a day--just to pay down the interest on
the national debt and the massive costs generated by the disastrous war
in Iraq. That's $365 billion this year that would be better spent on
priorities like health care for all Americans, better schools, fighting
crime, and treating diseases at home and abroad.
In contrast, one of the few numbers actually going down as the
President winds down his tenure is that of judicial vacancies. Senate
Democrats have worked hard to make progress on judicial nominations,
lowering circuit court vacancies by almost two-thirds from the level to
which the Republican Senate majority had built them. Any effort to turn
attention from the real issues facing Americans to win political points
with judicial nominations is neither prudent, nor productive.
Today we confirm three nominations for lifetime appointments. The
first, Mark S. Davis, currently serves as Chief Judge of the Portsmouth
Circuit Court, Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia. Prior to his
appointment to the bench in 2003, Judge Davis worked in private
practice at several Virginia law firms.
David Gregory Kays currently serves as the presiding circuit court
judge for the Twenty-Sixth Judicial Circuit for the State of Missouri,
where he has served since his first election in 2005. Previously, Judge
Kays served as an associate circuit judge for Laclede County Circuit
Court in Missouri and as chief assistant prosecuting attorney in
Laclede County.
Stephen N. Limbaugh is a supreme court judge and former chief justice
on the Supreme Court of Missouri. Previously, Judge Limbaugh was
appointed and then elected Circuit Judge for the 32nd Judicial Circuit
of Missouri. Before his career on the State bench, Judge Limbaugh was
an elected prosecuting attorney and also worked in private practice.
So today we make progress, and the Senate is likely to confirm three
additional lifetime appointments to the Federal bench. I congratulate
the nominees and their families on their confirmation today.
Mr. President, how much time remains on either side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two minutes twenty seconds for the
Senator from Virginia, and 33 seconds to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield 1 minute
to the Senator from Virginia.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I was very privileged to submit the name
of Mr. Davis to the President of the United States, and I am greatly
appreciative to the Senate to now come to the question of his
confirmation. But I think it would be interesting if I were to point
out to all those following it that this individual was a former member
of my staff.
I think it shows the incentive of those many staff persons all
throughout our system who contribute so much to the work of our
individual Senators that they too can, through their service, lay the
foundation to someday achieve this recognition by the Senate in which
they worked.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield to Senator Webb on my time, Mr. President.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I very quickly wish to associate myself with
the remarks of the senior Senator from Virginia and to emphasize that
we jointly examined a whole array of nominees for this position. This
individual, perhaps because of and perhaps in spite of the fact he
worked for the senior Senator from Virginia, is considered highly
qualified by Members on this side of the aisle.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would commend one more time the two
Senators from Virginia, both dear friends of mine, for the fact we
worked as one Democrat, one Republican with the White House to get us
past this impasse. And I commend President Bush for withdrawing
controversial nominees and working toward consensus nominees. That is
why this nominee will go through, I suspect unanimously, in this body.
I also commend the two Senators from Missouri, Senators Bond and
McCaskill, for working together.
Has all time been yielded back?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Yes, it has.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Mark Steven Davis, of Virginia, to be a United States district judge
for the Eastern District of Virginia?
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 148 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Byrd
Clinton
Graham
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________
NOMINATION OF DAVID GREGORY KAYS TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
______
NOMINATION OF STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the remaining
nominations en bloc.
The legislative clerk read the nominations of David Gregory Kays, of
Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Western District
of Missouri; Stephen N. Limbaugh, of Missouri, to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Vote on Nomination of David Gregory Kays
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate
advise and consent to the nomination of David Gregory Kays, of
Missouri, to be U.S. district judge for the Western District of
Missouri?
The nomination was confirmed.
Vote on Nomination of Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is, Will the Senate
[[Page 11925]]
advise and consent to the nomination of Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., to be
U.S. district judge for the Eastern District of Missouri?
The nomination was confirmed.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table.
The President will immediately be notified of the Senate's action.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume
legislative session.
____________________
RECESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate stands in recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:48 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper).
____________________
CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mr. REID. 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. 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.
Unanimous-Consent Request--Authority for Committee to Meet
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during this session of
the Senate.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leader, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the objection of my good friend
from Mississippi. He was not objecting on his own but for someone else.
The hearing we were going to conduct was a hearing entitled
``Coercive Interrogation Techniques: Do They Work, Are They Reliable,
and What Did the FBI Know About Them?''
This morning, Senator Feinstein, as chair of the subcommittee, began
chairing a very important hearing on interrogation tactics. The hearing
featured a report by the Department of Justice inspector general on
tactics at Guantanamo that amounted to torture. The hearing was
interrupted by three floor votes, and the chair recessed the hearing
until 2 p.m.
As you know, we have our weekly caucuses starting at 12:30. But now
the minority is objecting to the committee meeting by invoking the 2-
hour rule. What this means is that 2 hours after we come into session,
there has to be consent to conduct hearings; otherwise, you have to do
them during the first 2 hours we are in session. It is very rare there
is an objection, but there is today. So I have no alternative but to
recess the Senate this afternoon to allow the hearing to continue.
The Republicans may not want these abuses to come to light, but I
think the American people have a right to know. This is part of a
pattern of obstructionism by my friends on the Republican side.
I want the Senate to debate a bill to reduce gas prices and I want
the Senate to debate a bill to extend tax credits for renewable energy,
and now they do not want the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing
about coercive interrogation tactics. They can try to use Senate rules
to silence these debates, but I will use the rules at this time to
allow the Judiciary Committee to continue the hearing. As soon as the
hearing is over, we are going to be out here to talk about gas prices.
I would hope this is framed with a picture that there is a
Presidential election going on. We have one Presidential candidate who
wants to do something about these high gas prices, wants to do
something about the bill to extend tax credits for renewable energy,
and we have another candidate who is opposed to this. We know who that
candidate is: it is the Senator from the State of Arizona. And I would
think that my friend, the Senator from Arizona, who is the Republican
nominee, would be concerned about this delaying tactic not to allow the
Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing on torture. That is what it
amounts to.
____________________
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR
Mr. REID. So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
be in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 2:19 p.m., recessed subject
to the call of the Chair and reassembled at 3:33 p.m. when called to
order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Sanders).
____________________
CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the debate
time on the motion to proceed to S. 3044 be divided in blocks of 30
minutes for the next 2 hours, with the majority controlling the first
30 minutes and the Republicans controlling the next 30 minutes, and so
on; that at the expiration of the 2 hours debate time be limited to 10
minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Renewable Energy and Jobs Creation Act
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my strong support
to the Renewable Energy and Jobs Creation Act. I wish to applaud the
incredibly hard work that was put into this package by the Finance
Committee and particularly Chairman Baucus. I also wish to congratulate
our counterparts in the House Ways and Means Committee for their
efforts in putting together this important piece of legislation.
I am so very disappointed--as we tried early this morning--that our
friends on the other side of the aisle chose to block progress on this
bill. It would have provided much needed tax relief to individual
taxpayers and to businesses alike. I don't know about other Senators,
but when I travel home people look to me and say: What are you doing to
help us with this economy? We are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline to
get to our jobs, to get to school, to get to all of the things we need
to tend to. We are concerned about the jobs we have lost in our State.
We are concerned about the increase in unemployment. We have to do
something about this economy. We have to do something about stimulating
the economy of our country to grow on behalf of all of the millions of
Americans out there who need us to help them.
This bill on which we were trying to proceed this morning could have
done just that. It could have provided just the stimulus we needed to
jump-start our economy. It would have been a good start. I think it is
particularly frustrating not to be able to move on it in light of all
of our current economic downturns. Taxpayers need this relief and they
need it right now. We need to provide them every opportunity to keep
this economy turning.
One of the things I think that comes from our businesses and
individuals across my State--and certainly across this country--is the
concern of the unknown. We try to create in our Tax Code the types of
incentives that will incentivize different cultural activities, such as
the purchasing of a home and home ownership, but we also want to
incentivize businesses to be able to grow and be competitive. If they
don't know they are going to have that same tax treatment for more than
6 months, or in 6 months it is going to expire, how are they going to
be able to make the reasonable business decisions to take the capital,
which right now is very hard to come by, and invest in certain areas of
their industry, to grow those jobs, and to grow those businesses that
are out there in this great country?
This package would have done just that. It provides businesses that
make investments in research and development with a tax credit. We are
falling
[[Page 11926]]
behind every year. Other countries across the globe are working hard to
provide the kind of research and development they need to move into new
industries for multiple reasons: job creation, obviously, as well as
our environment. Look at nations, such as Brazil, which have lessened
their dependence on foreign oil from 80 percent to 11 percent. They
have invested in research. They have invested in developing renewable
fuels. We have to do that too. This is the bill that would have started
us moving on that pathway to investing in companies that cannot only
provide us the good types of industries that would help us clean our
environment but would have created the jobs that would have made the
difference.
It also encourages infrastructure investment. One of the ways it does
that is through the extension of the short-line rail credit which
provides an incentive for the maintenance and expansion of our short
line rail systems. When you come from a rural State as I do--we are
very fortunate to have the major lines that come through our State to
reach out to all of those small communities where we desperately need
to create jobs--we need those short line rails that can connect to the
major main line rails to take our goods and our services all across
this great country into the ports that will take it to other countries
with which we can compete. We need to give them the incentive to invest
in themselves.
In talking to one of my short line rails, they said to me: You
wouldn't believe the number of jobs we could create, the investment we
could make, if we just simply knew that Congress was supporting us,
that they are going to help us with that incentive we have had in the
past and we want to continue.
The unknown is very frightening to businesses in this world we live
in and in the economic times in which we are living. The margins right
now are so slim, limiting their ability to compete with other modes of
transportation, but without a doubt they can provide a service to
industries that are competing with industries across the globe.
This bill would have kept jobs at home through incentives to
encourage domestic production of films, as one particular example. We
are seeing our films being sent overseas and offshore because other
countries are offering greater incentives. When you look at rural
America, one of the strongest ways--and the quickest ways too--to see
the investment and the revitalization of these small communities and
their little downtown Main Streets is when somebody comes in to produce
a film. They come in to produce a film, and they put a good picture on
redoing that Main Street area. They bring in jobs; not only jobs with
filmmaking, but they also come and eat in our cafes, and they use the
shops and the other amenities that are there, keeping businesses at
home.
But we can't do that if those film companies don't know that they are
going to get good treatment, at least as good as they get in other
countries. They have a bottom line to meet too. They take their film
crews and all the dollars they are spending in making those films, and
they go into other countries. We need to keep them at home. Those are
good jobs for electricians and contractors, plumbers, and a whole host
of other people.
I have a retired man at home, and they did a film--a made-for-TV
movie--in my former Congressional District on the eastern side of my
State, and he had two antique cars. You wouldn't have believed the
difference it made in his life to be able to rent those two cars, those
two antique cars to be featured in a vintage film and what it meant to
his pocketbook as well.
The bill we have been trying to bring forward and were prevented this
morning from bringing forward allows our financial services businesses
to remain competitive globally through the extension of the subpart F
exceptions for the active financing income. It provides access to
capital to our communities that need it the most--our rural and low-
income communities--through an extension of the new market tax credit,
enabling our businesses to be viable overseas, and also making sure
that the new and innovative businesses we want to see in our small and
rural communities can actually happen, that they can be a part of this
global community, and that they will have the same kind of advantages
that other industries and other businesses in bigger parts of our
Nation may have. All of these provisions provide a huge benefit to our
American businesses and would most definitely help to stimulate our
slowing economy.
In addition, the bill we were trying to bring up this morning
provides very important relief for individual taxpayers. It includes
tax cuts for college students, their families, and our teachers. With
twin boys who are finishing the sixth grade and starting the seventh
grade, right now in my mind I have a tremendous appreciation for our
teachers and what they give day in and day out, being able to offer
them the opportunity of a Tax Code that is going to reward them for
this incredible job they do.
I ask my colleagues--just as was my experience in the public schools
of Arkansas--to look back and think of those wonderful teachers who
have affected their lives. There are great teachers out there right
now, and they need us because it is an institution and a business that,
unfortunately, we are not seeing enough. We are hitting a brick wall.
We are seeing more teachers who are retiring than we are seeing new
teachers. What a great way for us in this country to show how much we
believe in those teachers.
It includes an incentive for our senior citizens who want to take
part in charitable giving. That is the IRA rollover. Every week I get a
call in my office from the same gentleman. He took advantage of the IRA
rollover to be able to give to his church. Every Sunday morning he goes
to his Sunday school and talks to the people in his Sunday school class
about this great opportunity of being able to give through these IRA
rollovers. Well, all of his friends in his Sunday school class want to
know if this is going to be the law. Can we do this? Should we do this?
Is this something that is going to continue?
We can't even tell them that. We are being held back from doing so
many productive things that would encourage not only individual
involvement in being able to generate our economy and put the emphasis
back on our economy from individuals, but also our businesses who need
our help.
The bill also includes an AMT patch to ensure more middle-income
taxpayers aren't going to be hit by the AMT this year.
It also has tremendous incentives for green jobs that we can grow in
this country and looking at renewable fuels and all the many things we
can do with those renewable fuels but also things such as wind--and we
have had tremendous tornadoes in Arkansas--and wind mills, and energy
from wind is not something we are really noted for doing. Our
topography is not necessarily meant for that, like some other States.
But we produce the blades for the windmills. That is hundreds of jobs
in my State. Let me tell you, do you think those industries are going
to want to continue to make the capital investment in the manufacturing
of something that may or may not be used, because those other
industries that are building and making that energy from wind don't
know if they can depend on the tax credit--a tax incentive in the code
that encourages the behavior of moving to a renewable energy source?
Mr. President, we have to move forward. We cannot keep standing here
fighting and bickering over whether we are going to proceed to talk
about these things. We have to move forward and talk about them.
Most important is an issue I have worked on for years which includes
a provision very near and dear to my heart, and that is a patch to the
refundable child tax credit, to ensure that thousands of hard-working
low-
income families aren't locked out of this credit. I wish to take a few
minutes to explain the child tax credit provision, which I have worked
on with my good friend and colleague, Olympia Snowe.
[[Page 11927]]
As some colleagues may be aware, to be eligible for the refundable
child tax credit, working families must meet an income threshold. If
they don't earn enough, they don't qualify for the credit. The problem
is, some of our working parents are working full time, but they still
don't earn enough to meet the current income threshold to qualify for
this tax credit, much less to receive a meaningful refund from it.
When first enacted, the income threshold for the refundable child tax
credit was set at $10,000. The threshold is indexed for inflation and
thus has increased every year. For 2008, it is going to be $12,050.
Unfortunately, as many of us are aware, wages are not increasing at
that same pace. For example, a single mother who earns the current
minimum wage and works a 35-hour-a-week job, 50 weeks out of the year,
fails to qualify for the refundable portion of the child tax credit.
Even after the minimum wage increases next month, that mother still
will not meet the income threshold.
That is what we want to encourage. We want to encourage people to
work, to be able to change the cycle of poverty that exists for welfare
today. We want to make sure individuals are encouraged to go to work,
so that they can still take care of their children. Our children are
our greatest resource. Why would parents who want to care for their
kids not want to incentivize that.
It is absolutely wrong to provide this credit to some hard-working
Americans while leaving others behind. The single working parent who is
stocking shelves in a local grocery score is every bit as deserving as
the teacher, accountant, or insurance salesman who qualifies for the
credit in its current form. It is imperative that we address this
inequity, and we must ensure our Tax Code works for all Americans,
especially those working parents who are forced to get by on minimum
wage.
I am extremely frustrated that our friends across the aisle chose to
block action on this bill. I hope that we will reconsider this
position, that we will look at the important value in all of these
pieces of this legislation, and that we will come back again and go
back to the drawing board and figure out how we can make this bill a
reality.
Again, I applaud our committee chairman for putting this package
together and trying to move it through the Senate in a timely fashion.
There is absolutely no reason we should not see this package. It is a
commonsense package. It makes sense for everybody concerned. We owe it
to our American businesses that are trying to remain competitive. We
owe it to our teachers, students, and the families paying college
tuition. We owe it to our communities that are desperately in need of
infrastructure and jobs. We owe it to our working families with
children. No one should stand in the way of this package that truly
will bring relief to so many Americans.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak today--as many of us have
been doing--not just about the high price of gasoline but all of the
pressures on American families that come with that. When I say
``families,'' I mean in the broadest sense of the word. The Presiding
Officer has advocated on behalf of people who are suffering under the
weight of high gasoline prices. He has been an articulate and forceful
advocate for action. We are finally at the point where we are at least
debating the action we should be taking.
I wanted to talk about prices. When the average American family goes
to the grocery store or they go to fill up their tank or they try to
pay for college or health care--just fill in the blank--it seems as if
everything in their lives is going up when their wages are flattening
out or sometimes actually going down. The price of everything is going
through the roof, and at the same time we have record job losses. I
don't know the exact number to date, but we have had tens of thousands
every month, month after month after month. Some believe the most
recent monthly job loss number is a record. But even if it is not a
record or if we are off by a couple thousand, it is still far too high.
In Pennsylvania, this is not just a problem in inner cities where a
lot of people's incomes are low; this is a problem across a State such
as Pennsylvania. We have a State that has some large cities and bigger
communities population-wise, but we have a very rural State. We have
millions of people in Pennsylvania who live in so-called rural areas by
the demographics. They have to travel great distances to get to the
grocery store or to make transactions for business or to get their
families to where they have to go. So gas prices, in some ways,
disproportionately adversely affect those who live in rural areas or in
small towns.
In Pennsylvania, we have--more than maybe any other State and
sometimes as many States as you can talk about combined--a lot of two-
lane roads. So the distance between one place and another isn't just
the mileage but it is the roads you take. On a two-lane road, you
cannot go as fast, and that adds to the difficulty and the reality of
gas prices.
We also have a State that has a tremendous agricultural economy. All
of those costs--the cost of energy and the cost of transportation and
distribution--are going up for our farm families.
While all this is happening--and we know there are no easy
solutions--we also see that, lo and behold, the big oil companies--in
the last 5 years, the profits of the five largest oil companies--in
2002, the profits of the five largest oil companies was a measly $29
billion. Last year, 2007, big oil had profits of $124 billion. So it
went from $29 billion to $124 billion in just 5 years. I think there
are very few, if any, American families--especially middle and lower
income families--who are under the weight of these costs I just talked
about who have had their incomes go up three, four, or five times.
The reality is that big oil has gotten too much. Over and over again,
their profits are going through the roof. This Government gave them tax
breaks a couple of years ago to the tune of $17 billion. So just at the
time when their profits were taking off in a record way, this
Government gave them, back in 2004 and 2005, $17 billion in breaks. We
have talked about taking away those breaks and allowing us as a
government, as a family, to be able to say there is another part of the
family over here that is hurting and we want to help them. I will do it
very briefly in terms of our approach.
Basically, what Democrats have tried to do is to say: Look, we don't
have to pretend we are helpless and sit back and say there is nothing
we can do. We don't have a magic wand and there is no easy solution,
but the idea of doing nothing and saying it is OK for oil companies to
get these profits at a time when we could use that revenue for
something else is ridiculous. Everybody out there knows it. They know,
for example, that we can say we should have an excess profits tax. That
makes sense. Now, if a big oil company comes in the door and says: You
know what, we are going to do our best to reduce our country's
dependence on foreign oil, we are going to be more efficient and put
more into research and development and do the right thing for the
American consumers, we are going to say: OK, then maybe your excess
profits tax--the hit against an oil company--is not going to be as
high. That is reasonable.
At the same time, a lot of people know that a high percentage of the
increase in the price of a barrel of oil is from speculation by people
on Wall Street who have money, power, influence, and the ability to get
information like that and make a huge financial profit. We should crack
down on speculation. We can do that. The Federal Government can do
that. We should give the Federal Government the authority to do that.
We should give the President--any President--the authority to crack
down on price gouging.
So there is much we can do. Listening to the other side of the aisle,
their solution is that we can drill our way out of that situation.
Nobody believes that. There is no evidence that we can
[[Page 11928]]
drill our way out of this. If anything, that keeps us dependent on
oil--not just foreign oil.
I think this idea that we sit back and do nothing is really not
worthy of a long argument. We have to end our addiction to oil. We have
to take specific, targeted steps to not just reduce our dependence on
foreign oil but to provide equity here for the American families.
I believe a lot of the solutions Democrats have talked about have
been very practical--an excess profits tax, taking away those
tremendous billions in breaks oil companies have had, and also getting
tough on the speculators, the people making a lot of money in the
market, is another very practical way. Democrats have offered a
practical set of solutions. We are waiting for the other side to come
up with their solution to the pressure felt by the American family.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to come to the Senate floor
and join my colleagues in talking about the unfortunate votes that were
cast this morning--one to go ahead and consider legislation to try to
deal with the price of gasoline. That was the first vote where,
unfortunately, we rejected the effort to proceed to that bill. The
majority of Republican Members chose not to proceed to that bill, which
was unfortunate. The second vote was to proceed to a bill that has the
effect of extending the provisions that are currently in the Tax Code
and particularly to extend tax provisions that are intended to
encourage clean energy development. I wish to talk about that second
bill in particular because it is one I have been involved in and have
followed and supported for some time now.
The incentives we have in current law to encourage alternative energy
development--wind energy, wind energy farms, wind turbine farms, solar
energy developments in this country--most of those incentives were put
into place in the current form in 2005 when we passed the Energy bill.
There was great fanfare and rejoicing when we passed that. The
President signed that bill in my home State of New Mexico, in
Albuquerque. He rightfully took credit for the fact that this was being
enacted, and he talked about the importance of these energy tax
provisions.
I did not realize when we did that in 2005 that it was the
administration's intent to allow those tax provisions to expire at the
end of 2008. I thought the idea was that we would keep those in place
long enough that we would provide incentives for people to pursue these
alternative options.
We have now tried three times in this Congress to extend those energy
tax provisions, and we have failed three times. So I rise to express
deep disappointment and frustration with that vote. The implications of
the vote are profound if we cannot persuade our colleagues to change
their position. Clearly, if it is going to be our national policy that
we are not extending these tax provisions, then we are going to suffer
environmental consequences from continued reliance on power generated
from fossil fuels; our efforts to reduce America's dependence on
foreign oil will be cut short; our ability to create high-paying green
jobs in these new energy sectors will come to nought; and our effort to
promote research and development in these new industries will certainly
not materialize. It is a sad day for us in the Senate; we are not able
to move ahead and do this.
The first time this issue came up, the first time we tried to extend
these tax provisions, the argument was that the offsets are the
problem; you folks are trying to reduce the tax benefits enjoyed by the
oil and gas industry in order to provide revenue to pay for these
alternative energy tax provisions, and that is the objectionable part.
I did not agree with that argument. I voted to extend the alternative
energy tax provisions and pay for it in that way, but I think the House
of Representatives has heard that message and the House of
Representatives has now sent us a bill, which is the bill we were
trying to proceed to today, which does not try to pay for these
extensions of alternative energy tax provisions by reducing tax
benefits for the oil and gas industry. It leaves the oil and gas
industry alone, and it finds some alternative ways to make up that lost
revenue. The alternatives are ones which, to my mind, are very
meritorious.
Of course, under our rules in the Senate that we have adopted in the
Congress, we have to find a way to make up the revenue being lost. That
is why we are pushing to do so, and it is the responsible thing to do.
The alternative, of course, is to borrow more money from our friends
overseas, to run up the deficit and let our grandchildren worry about
it at some point down the road. That is not a responsible course.
One of the bill's offsets that we were trying to proceed to today
would delay a tax benefit known as the worldwide interest allocation.
That is a tax benefit that has not gone into effect. We would delay the
effective date of it, again, for some period. There are a lot of
corporations that have indicated to us they would support going ahead
and delaying that benefit. This is not a tax increase from current law;
this is keeping current law where it is.
The other offset would be to close a loophole that enables hedge fund
managers to defer compensation by investing wages in offshore
investment funds. This proposal would end that deferral, would require
the hedge fund managers recognize the compensation that they receive as
income when it is paid. This proposal does not increase taxes; it
simply changes the timing of tax liabilities.
Describing this loophole, the New York Times says:
Many hedge fund managers are enjoying not only
extraordinary profits, but the extra benefit of a system
almost encouraging them to set up offshore accounts.
What we were trying to do in this legislation is to say let's not
encourage them to set up offshore accounts by giving them tax
incentives to do so. That is a reasonable position, and it is one that
we should definitely be enacting into law. I know 44 Members of this
Chamber voted ``no'' in our effort to proceed to consider this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator's time has
expired.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I do not see additional colleagues
here. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate it. As I said, 44 Members of the Senate
voted not to proceed to consider this bill and instead, I gather, to
protect a handful of hedge fund managers from having to pay the normal
tax that ought to be levied on each American when they get compensated.
Clearly, I think we have lost sight of our priorities. I know this is
an election year. I know there are powerful special interests that are
always saying just vote no, always resist whatever is proposed. The
simple fact is, if we are going to turn the page, if we are going to
turn the corner on our future energy needs, we are going to have to
move ahead and put in place some policies that will encourage
alternative energy development. We have fallen short in doing that now
three times in this Congress. I hope we do not continue to fall short.
I urge my colleagues to reconsider this, and I hope the majority leader
will find a way to bring this issue back to the full Senate, even this
week, if possible, so we can get a positive vote to proceed with this
legislation.
Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENSIGN. 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. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to warn the American
people.
[[Page 11929]]
There is a Trojan horse riding across our country and onto the Senate
floor. Its creators want everyone to believe that their climate tax
proposal will clean the planet while causing minimum impact on our
lives. They want us to believe that everyone will live happily ever
after. However, this is not a legend or a fairy tale. Hiding inside
this Trojan horse is a monster of a tax increase to pay for the largest
expansion of the Federal Government since FDR's New Deal.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that this
proposal will cost the American taxpayer $1.2 trillion dollars in taxes
over just the first 10 years of this bill. And that tax bill is only
expected to rise with time. With the hefty price tag and a huge
expansion of bureaucracy, the legislation actually does very little, if
anything, to improve the environment. The American people cannot afford
to pay for this reckless attempt at energy policy. Instead, we should
let American ingenuity lead the way toward exploration of American
energy, expansion of renewable energy, and increased conservation.
This Climate Tax bill imposes a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that
can be released into the environment by certain businesses, and this
cap will gradually reduce every year until 2050. The bill creates
allowances that gives companies the right to emit specific amounts of
these greenhouse gases.
Some of the allowances will be distributed for free to various
entities. The rest of the allowances will be auctioned to the highest
bidder. These allowances can then be sold, traded, or transferred. The
cost incurred by businesses to obtain these allowances will be passed
on to consumers, hitting low-income households the hardest. But before
we talk about the revenue windfall for the Government and about the
people celebrating this legislation, let's discuss the victims.
First and foremost, this Climate Tax bill will cost our economy and
our working families greatly. Restricting carbon dioxide emissions
drives our energy supply down. Just as the bill hopes to do, the price
of energy would increase. With gasoline prices already over 4 dollars a
gallon and predicted to continue rising, we will all be hurting.
According to the EPA, this bill will increase the price of gas by at
least 53 cents a gallon. 53 cents. In my home State of Nevada, this
would translate currently into about $4.68 a gallon at today's average
price for regular gasoline. And gas prices aren't the only thing that
will go up. Electricity bills will increase by 44 percent or more.
And the cost to our overall economy would be devastating. By 2030,
the annual loss to the United States' gross domestic product could
reach nearly a trillion dollars. The proposal is called America's
Climate Security Act, but with millions of jobs being destroyed because
of this bill, not many Americans are going to be feeling secure. Many
of the jobs lost are going to be in the manufacturing and mining
industries that support so many of our smaller and rural communities.
These valuable jobs will be forced to move overseas to countries like
China and India, where companies will continue to emit greenhouse gases
freely and without constraint. In case you haven't noticed, we all
occupy the same big greenhouse--the planet Earth. So Americans lose
their jobs, but our air on our planet is still polluted.
In fact, this bill makes such a minor impact on the worldwide
greenhouse gas emissions that any reduction in the United States is
swallowed up by the uncontrolled and rapidly growing emissions of
China, India, and other developing nations.
If emissions continue to increase in these countries, the problems
resulting from the global warming predicted by many scientists may
still occur.
It just does not make sense for us to dramatically restrict our
greenhouse gas emissions if China and India do not do the same.
If this bill isn't good for our families, our economy, our workers or
our environment, who is it good for? The special interests and
Washington lobbyists. By auctioning off carbon emission allowances and
giving away even more for free, there will be more than $6 trillion
dollars worth of allowances and offsets and funds to dole out to a
hungry and a fierce pack of special interests. It's being called
``environmental pork,'' and the wolves are going to be ready to pounce.
Hundreds of billions of dollars of that pork won't even stay here in
America. Instead, it will be given away to foreign governments and
companies.
So do we stand by as the proponents trot around this plan that means
new taxes, higher gas prices, higher electricity bills, and more
bureaucracy? In fact, the only thing this proposal reduces are the jobs
of hard-working Americans and our standard of living.
Now, don't get me wrong, we absolutely need comprehensive energy
reform. Americans are hurting at the pump and their budgets are being
busted by rising cooling and heating bills. As a Nation, we are too
dependent on Middle Eastern oil--a resource that is too often in the
hands of brutal dictatorships.
But as is often the case in our Nation's history, we must look
forward to a policy that unleashes the innovative spirit of Americans,
takes a commonsense approach to our challenges, and rallies everyone to
the cause.
We do this by encouraging conservation, efficiency, and renewable
energy expansion through incentives, not by imposing unworkable
mandates and impossible timelines.
As we spend time debating this legislation today, crucial tax credits
that encourage innovation in solar, geothermal, wind, hydropower, and
other alternative energy technologies are scheduled to expire.
America's energy security needs those tax credits, and Congress should
act to extend them immediately without offsets. The Senate took an
important step toward that objective by voting 88 to 8--to include the
bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act, which I sponsored as part of
the Senate-passed housing bill. Now the House must act so we can send a
bill to the President that can be signed into law as soon as possible.
With exciting energy technology on the horizon, we can't afford to
let these tax credits expire. In Nevada, some innovative projects have
already begun harnessing the power of the Sun and to provide energy to
our residents.
Nevada Solar One in Boulder City is one of the largest capacity solar
plants built in the world and generates enough electricity to power at
least 14,000 households a year.
Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas has the Nation's biggest
photovoltaic solar power system, which supplies 30 percent of the
energy needs at that base.
Henderson has Nevada's first solar home community, where each home
has a rooftop solar electric system that generates 4,400 kilowatts
hours per year. And late last year, Ausra, Inc., selected Las Vegas as
the site of the first U.S. manufacturing plant for solar thermal power
systems.
The world's largest geothermal power producer is headquartered in
Reno.
And Nevada is home to the only associate degree program in the Nation
in energy efficiency.
This is the innovative spirit that has powered American progress for
centuries and will continue to drive us toward energy security for the
21st century and beyond. Renewable energy is a large part of that
security, and my renewable energy bill encourages further investment in
all these technological advances.
I believe that energy efficiency is the key to increasing
conservation of our nation's energy resources. For this reason, my
bipartisan Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act contains a number of
meaningful incentives to put us on the path to greater energy
efficiency and independence. My bill encourages Americans to make
energy efficiency improvements to their homes and businesses. This bill
also encourages appliance manufacturers to produce more energy-
efficient appliances.
But we also need to grow America's energy supply so that our economy
and our wallets are not in the hands of unpredictable and unyielding
hostile nations. What can we do? We can open a new frontier in American
energy. I'm talking about responsible exploration
[[Page 11930]]
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, recoverable oil in
deep-sea resources, opportunities with oil shale, a new era of nuclear
energy, and a push toward clean coal.
I know these projects are controversial. When I first started
considering exploration of ANWR, I had serious concerns. Proponents and
opponents have been very vocal on this issue. I sought out neutral
information so that I could make an informed decision. When you really
get to the bottom of the debate over ANWR, you learn a few things.
Exploration of ANWR, which would not impact habitat and wildlife,
would be limited to a tiny area, roughly the size of a postage stamp on
a football field. With such a limited environmental impact, the benefit
would be great. ANWR could generate more than 10 billion barrels of
oil, enough to replace decades' worth of oil imports from Saudi Arabia.
ANWR alone could save the United States $40 billion dollars annually in
money now spent buying oil from overseas. It would also create hundreds
of thousands of jobs. Thirteen years ago, President Clinton vetoed
legislation that would have opened ANWR for exploration. If he had
signed it into law instead, 1 million barrels of domestic oil would be
flowing into the United States every single day.
This is American oil that would create American jobs. I'd say that is
a much better investment than filling the coffers of countries that
despise America and use our money to further that hate.
And we can access more American energy through deep-sea exploration
in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. This doesn't mean we set up oil
rigs on our beaches and our shores. Development would take place at
least 50 miles offshore, well beyond the visibility from land and at
the discretion of coastal State Governors. Again, with very limited
environmental impact, the benefit would be great.
There are about 8\1/2\ billion barrels of recoverable oil and 29.3
trillion cubic feet of natural gas available through such deep-sea
exploration.
Oil shale is another promising supply of American energy that could
make us more self-reliant and less dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Oil
shale can be mined and processed to generate oil. By far the largest
deposits of oil shale in the world are found in the United States in
the Green River Formation, which includes portions of Colorado, Utah,
and Wyoming. If we estimate there are about 1.8 trillion barrels of oil
from oil shale in the Green River Formation, it is three times greater
than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It is also important to
note that more than 70 percent of oil shale acreage in the Green River
Formation is under federally owned land. Another positive attribute of
oil shale resources.
America has more than a 230-year supply also of coal. Making us the
Saudi Arabia of coal. It would be irresponsible for us to ignore this
valuable resource that is abundant and affordable. With the progress
being made in clean coal technology, we need coal to balance our energy
portfolio and make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
Another energy supply that we can take advantage of right here on
American soil is nuclear energy. America was once the leader in this
technology, but we are so far behind today that if we don't make
drastic changes in our policy, we may never catch up.
Nuclear energy is clean and safe. It causes no air pollution, no
water pollution, and no ground pollution. Nuclear energy in the United
States has never caused a single injury or death. Unfortunately, only
20 percent of our electricity is coming from nuclear reactors. Doesn't
make a whole lot of sense, does it?
We have several challenges when it comes to nuclear energy. President
Carter outlawed nuclear recycling back in 1977. Another terrible blow
came with the requirement that all radioactive byproducts be disposed
of in a nuclear waste repository. Today, Britain, France, and Russia
are recycling their nuclear waste, negating the need for a
controversial repository, like Yucca Mountain. France has actually used
nuclear power to produce 80 percent of its electricity for the last 25
years. France also manages to store all its high-level nuclear waste in
a single room.
On the other hand, lawmakers in the United States have been throwing
billions of dollars at a mountain in Nevada that is unsafe and unfit
for nuclear waste storage. And why on Earth would we bury material that
could be recycled into more energy? I also believe we must create
incentives for the private sector to tackle the challenge of spent fuel
storage. We know that Yucca mountain is not an option. For this reason,
I plan to introduce a bill to establish monetary prizes for
achievements in the research, development, demonstration, and
commercial application of spent fuel storage alternatives. In the past,
prized competitions have been very effective ways of encouraging
creative solutions to address difficult technological challenges.
Technology has led to tremendous progress when it comes to nuclear
energy, coal, and many other energy fronts. As ranking member of the
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
Innovation, I have had the opportunity to delve into the latest
advances, and they are exciting. I can tell you technology and
innovation will be keys to overcoming our energy challenges into the
future. No other single road--renewable energy, conservation, domestic
supply--can get us there. But technology, together with these American
energy resources, will help lift us from the control of unconscionable
nations.
These are the answers to our energy challenges, not some ill-
conceived fantasy legislation called America's Climate Security Act,
that will only drive us into greater energy insecurity. We can,
however, learn from history and if we open this Trojan horse, we
shouldn't be surprised to be engulfed by hidden tax hikes, $5 dollar-a-
gallon gasoline, and an army of new Washington bureaucrats.
Instead, let us put our resources into American ingenuity. The
innovation that has always come out of our inventors, scientists, and
entrepreneurs will fuel our quest for energy security in the 21st
century.
Ronald Reagan once said:
Preservation of our environment is not liberal or
conservative challenge, it's common sense.
We need to come together to address this issue because it impacts
every facet of our lives. I know that we can be champions of a
commonsense energy policy that is environmentally responsible as well
as economically responsible. Let's not look back on another 13 years
and wish we had acted today. The price for inaction is clearly too
steep.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, it is my understanding we have the floor
until 4:36, if I am correct, which means I would not have time to make
a presentation I wish to make on the bill that was pending, the one
that we, fortunately, voted against cloture on earlier today. But let
me make a couple comments, since I would not have time to do that.
First of all, I believe strongly that something wonderful happened
last Friday. We have been fighting this battle for so long. People have
been saying manmade gases--anthropogenic gases, CO2, and
methane--were the major causes of climate change. I have to say, I
believed that back 7 years ago, when I became chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Committee. At that time we found out how
much it would cost if we were to ratify the Kyoto treaty and live by
its requirements. Fortunately, that amount we did not ratify.
As time went by, I noticed in 2005 we had the McCain-Lieberman bill,
also a cap-and-trade bill, which also tried to pin the problem on
manmade gases--CO2. I remember standing down here on the
floor and some of the proponents of the bill were down here. In 5 days,
only two Republicans from the Senate came down and joined me in this
fight. It was lonely for 5 days. We explained to
[[Page 11931]]
people, No. 1, the science wasn't there; and, No. 2, the cost to the
average American would be comparable to a $330 billion tax increase.
Then I went back and looked at the tax increase of 1993. It was
called the Clinton-Gore tax increase that was, at that time, the
largest tax increase in the last 20 years. That was only $32 billion,
so this would have been 10 times greater than that tax increase.
Then of course we came up with the bill in 2005. After 5 days we
defeated it, but only two Republicans came down and joined me. I am so
gratified that last week when we defeated the Lieberman-Warner bill, 25
Members came down and showed that they were not afraid to stand and
tell the truth about the causes of global warming--the accusation of
global warming, because global warming has not been taking place now
since 2001. It never took place in the southern hemisphere. Last time I
checked, that was part of the globe.
The problem was that no one would come down, but last week they came
down, 25, and we defeated it. That would not have been comparable to an
annual tax increase or cost to the public of $330 billion, as the Kyoto
treaty would have, it would have been some $471 billion--a huge tax
increase. But we did in our wisdom reject that. I feel very good about
that.
There is something that has not been said that I think is necessary
to talk about and that is we knew this was coming. The Senator from
Nevada, Senator Ensign, talked about President Clinton's veto of the
ANWR opening, the bill that was in December of 1995. What he didn't say
was that we had voted in both October and November of 1995. The Senate
voted to implement a competitive leasing program for oil and gas
exploration and the development and production within the coastal plain
of ANWR. That was actually passed. It was passed again on November 17,
1995. I will always remember that date because that is my birthday. It
was voted on. Then of course a month later the President vetoed it.
Right down on party lines, in both November and in October of 1995,
the Democrats voted against it, the Republicans all voted for it.
Republicans want to increase the supply of energy in America. Those
were three votes that show it. Again, in 2005--fast forward 10 more
years: on March 16, 2005, the Senate voted on an amendment to the
budget to strike expanding exploration on ANWR. The amendment to strike
failed, 49 to 51. All the Republicans voted for the exploration, all
Democrats voted against it.
Again, on November 3, 2005, 7 or 8 months later, the Senate voted on
an amendment to prohibit oil and gas leasing on the coastal plain. The
amendment failed 48 to 51; 48 Republicans voted against it and 40
Democrats voted for it.
June 2007--2 years later--the Senate voted on the Gas Price Act as an
amendment. That was mine. You could have all the exploration you want,
all the oil and gas you want, but if you cannot refine it, you are not
going to be able to use it, so the Gas Price Act, I thought, was pretty
ingenious. What we did was take those ailing communities that were
adjacent to military communities, military bases that had been shut
down by the BRAC process, the Base Realignment and Closing process, and
would allow them to change that vacated area into refineries. It would
save a lot of money because the Federal Government wouldn't have to
clean them up to the standards of playgrounds; they could just be to
the standards of refineries. It also provided that the Economic
Development Administration would provide grants so people would be able
to start up refineries. It was killed right down party lines. Again
that was 2007.
Then in 2008, May 13 of 2008, the Senate voted on an amendment to
expand exploration in ANWR and to authorize drilling in offshore
coastal waters. Again, it failed down party lines. I could go on.
The next one I had was 2 days after that the Senate voted on a motion
to instruct the budget conferees concerning increased exploration on
the Outer Continental Shelf.
What I am saying is this: The first thing we learn when we go to
school is that at least American symbols are very strong. They help us
to understand that supply and demand is still alive and well in this
country. It still means something. If we do not expand the supply of
energy in America, then the price is not going to go down, it is going
to go up. That is exactly what the Democrats have done by refusing to
let us explore for oil and gas as well as nuclear, clean coal
technology, and the other forms we need to use.
When it gets down to it, we know the cause of it. We know also we do
not want to use the Energy bill. I am very glad the Democrats' energy
bill--which didn't have any energy in it, zero, none--went down. Now we
want an opportunity to introduce an amendment we have that does allow
us to increase the availability and the amount of energy in America--
either oil and gas, nuclear, or clean coal technology, and all the
rest, wind, and all the renewables also. We need to do that. It is a
simple thing. We need to quit blaming each other. We know how we got to
this position. Now we need to change our behavioral pattern.
Americans right now realize--gas is $4 a gallon. I can assure you--I
am not sure how it is in California and other States--in Oklahoma that
is the No. 1 issue. In Oklahoma they understand supply and demand. We
need to understand it in this Chamber too.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. Is it my understanding the Democrats now have 30 minutes
reserved? Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I was interested to hear my friend from
Oklahoma, the ranking member on my Environment and Public Works
Committee, talk about how much the Republicans care about gas prices
after they just tanked our effort to deal with them. It is
extraordinary what we are seeing here, right before the eyes of the
American people.
Last week they said ``no'' to global warming legislation. Global
warming is real. The Senator from Oklahoma reminds me of the people who
kept saying: No, the Earth is flat. No, cigarettes don't cause cancer.
He is lining up with those people.
The vast majority of scientists tell us global warming is real. He
bragged about how he beat us last week. Let me take a look at that. He
said it was a wonderful thing that happened on Friday, when the Senate
didn't get 60 votes to continue the debate on global warming and
address it. He said it was a wonderful thing. I want to say to the 89
percent of the American people, who believe global warming must be
addressed, because it is a moral issue that is facing us, because we
have to protect this planet for our grandkids, because we need to get
off foreign oil, have alternatives to foreign gas--and yes, in my State
it is well over $4--we have to address it. He is celebrating the fact
that we fell short.
Let me tell you we fell short by only six votes. We fell short by six
votes. We had 46 Democrats for dealing with global warming now, plus 8
Republicans--54. We needed 60. He is celebrating.
We are going to be celebrating come November because we are going to
have a President who is going to work with us on global warming
legislation and we are going to have six more votes here in the Senate,
I can predict. Because my friends on the other side of the aisle--with
a few exceptions, very few--are fierce defenders of the status quo.
Let me repeat that. The leadership in the Republican Party and the
vast majority of Republicans, save a handful, are fierce defenders of
the status quo. They say no to global warming legislation which will
get us off foreign oil, which will get us off big oil. They say no,
today, to going after the speculators, going after big oil, making them
disgorge some of that money so we can invest it in alternatives; going
after OPEC and saying: If you are colluding, you are going to be held
accountable.
They said: No, no, no. Yes, to the status quo; no to positive change
for the American people.
[[Page 11932]]
They come down to the floor and they are happy about it. It is
unbelievable to me.
The wonderful thing that did happen on Friday is we reached a high
water mark. We reached 54 votes. The last vote on the global warming
bill, it was 38.
The even more wonderful part is out of the people who were absent,
who sent in letters who said they were with us, were the two
Presidential candidates. So all that talk about celebrating the fact
that we stopped global warming legislation is kind of a death rattle,
in my opinion, for those people who do not believe they have to address
this challenge of our generation.
I am looking at the young people here today, their beautiful faces.
They deserve to have a good life in the future. I want to say to them
today: You are here in an historic time because the window is closing
for action. With global warming, if you don't act, you lose valuable
time, because the carbon stays in the atmosphere for so long it becomes
more difficult to get it out of the atmosphere.
Last week we came up six votes short even though we reached a high
water mark on the bill. At the end of the day we now have a roadmap for
change--46 Democrats voted yes to tackle global warming, 8 Republicans
voted yes. What does that tell you about the two parties?
When I took the gavel in January after the Democrats took back this
majority by only the slimmest of margins, I said I wanted to put global
warming on the map because under the leadership of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle we did nothing to address it. The President has
basically--and we know this for sure--interfered with the scientists in
his own administration and not allowed the facts to be told. So we had
25 hearings.
The second thing I wanted to do is make it bipartisan. John Warner
said, ``I am with you. I care about my grandkids. I care about national
security.'' The Naval Academy did a very important study that this is
going to be the No. 1 cause of wars in the future as we have desperate
refugees running away from droughts and famine and flooding and all the
rest, and rising sea levels. When John Warner came across, I knew I had
accomplished that. He did it for me. He made it bipartisan.
Then we got the strong bill out of the committee, we improved it, we
got it to the floor, and we knew it had a lot of work. We got a letter
from 10 people who voted for it who said: Look, Senator, and Harry
Reid, we need to work on it. We understand that is what we have to do
when our next President says let's go, let's get a bill through. So I
think it is appalling that my ranking member of the Environment
Committee would come down here and celebrate the fact that we were not
able to move forward on global warming legislation, and furthermore
said it is not real. He brought that out again.
I do thank those who engaged in the debate, both pro and con. It was
a landmark debate. I only regret that the Republicans filibustered and
we had to take the bill off the floor because we could have gotten a
very good bill. It was a very good bill to start with and we could have
worked on it and made it even better.
But, come November, we will see whether I am right or wrong. I think
I will be right. One of the reasons I am right, and I believe we will
have Senators here who are going to be hospitable to global warming
legislation, is because we also need Senators who are hospitable to
doing something about gas prices.
This is an amazing chart. Since George Bush got into office--do we
remember this? He and Dick Cheney were oil men. One of the reasons they
urged for getting elected is: We know how to deal with the oil
companies; leave it to us. We know how to deal with the Saudi Arabian
princes; leave it to us. We will deal with it.
They dealt with it. There was a 250-percent increase in the price of
gas--$3.94. This is old. It is now $4. This I used last week. It is
already old; today it is $4. In my State it is about $4.40. You can't
keep up with the increases in the price of gas. This is what we are
facing.
So in the Senate today we said: All right, they said no to global
warming legislation--which was a long-term answer to big oil.
What we would have done is we would have had a cap-and-trade system
that would have put a price on carbon, gone between the free
marketplace, and that would have led to trillions of dollars, I say to
my friend, trillions of dollars in investments by the private sector,
cellulosic fuel, automobiles that get 150 miles per gallon, electric
cars, all the rest. That is the long-term solution pushing down demand.
We all know that. Pushing down demand.
Now, the other side will say if you drill in a wildlife refuge it
will solve your problems. No, it is false. Put aside that Dwight
Eisenhower, a Republican President, set aside the Alaskan Wildlife
Refuge and said this is a precious gift from God; set it aside. What
are you going to do to God's creatures by drilling over there? Forget
it.
Put it aside for the moment and talk about what you get. You get 6
months' worth of oil. You cannot drill your way out of this. Someone
said--I think it was Senator Menendez who made a great analogy. He
said: Everybody says we are addicted to oil. Even our own President
says we are addicted to oil. Let's say someone was addicted to drugs.
Is the way to get them off drugs to give them 6 months' more worth of
drugs? Does that help? No. No. No.
We need to figure out a way to get off of foreign oil, get away from
big oil, because we know the developing nations are gobbling it up. And
we also know we have done so little, so little to address the issue of
energy efficiency, fuel technology. It is a sad thing. We have lost so
much time.
Today at gas stations across the Nation, the American people are
suffering. They are facing sticker shock. They are having to choose,
choose between something they might buy at the store for dinner and
filling up the tank. That is a fact. That is a fact.
I will never forget when Vice President Cheney first sat down for his
closed-door meetings with oil executives and energy industry lobbyists,
and we said: We want to know what you are talking about, Mr. Vice
President. What is going on behind those closed doors?
And he said: Oh, I am working to make energy affordable.
You know what gas was? It was $1.50. That is when he sat down with
his friends in oil companies. We cannot find out what they talked
about, but I can tell you this: Whatever they talked about was good for
them, was good for the oil companies, was good for big oil. Gas is
$4.40 a gallon in many California locations. I have seen gas prices as
high as $5 in my State. So we have secret meetings with Dick Cheney
with the energy people, and gas went up 250 percent.
Again, these are old numbers. It is even worse. Gas went up 82 cents
since January--82 cents since January. Again, it is even more than that
now. It is way more than that, close to 90 cents.
In every case, you see the Bush administration saying they are going
to do something. They never did anything. A lot of talk, a lot of yack,
a lot of visits with Saudi Arabia, a lot of kissing on the cheek with
the princes, holding hands. We saw the picture. What happened? This.
Straight up. Two oil men in the White House. Is it any wonder?
Many of us said at the time, other people said: It is terrific, two
oil men at the White House. They will know how to deal with the oil
companies. Well, they sure knew how to deal with the oil companies. The
oil companies never had it so good. And my Republican friends right
here, with few exceptions, have fallen all over themselves to give
those very same companies huge tax breaks, even as they are making
record profits.
Listen to this: Last year the oil companies pocketed $124 billion in
profits, up from $29 billion in 2002. That means they have quadrupled
their profits since 2002, four times. Let's think about it, America.
What happened to your salary? Did your salary quadruple? I think we
know the answer to that.
[[Page 11933]]
We know Americans are losing ground. The average family is losing
ground, thousands of dollars in lost revenue. Their salaries are not
keeping up with inflation. The price of gas is out of sight. It is hard
for them to get health care. Health care costs are out of sight. Food
prices are going up. Everything is going up--tuition.
But what do my friends on the other side say? They want to give oil
companies these great big tax breaks. They did in 2004 and 2005.
Believe it or not, they gave them tax breaks worth over $17 billion
over the next decade. And these tax breaks are free and clear. We did
not even say--they did not say in the legislation oil companies have to
invest in renewables, improving infrastructure, increasing capacity.
No. You know what they did with the money? They spent $185 billion on
stock buybacks instead of investing in clean, alternative fuels or new
refinery utilization.
And as my friend in the chair said today, they are spending more on
public relations than the average family spends in a lifetime because
they know, when the American people really understand this, what the
American people will think. Have you seen those beautiful commercials
by the oil companies? We really care. We are doing so much.
Do you think they are doing all of these wonderful things? No, most
of the money is spent on buying back their stock.
Unchecked speculation. I have heard some experts say that about one-
third of the price of oil a barrel is due to speculation. We tried to
pass a bill today that, first of all, said to the oil companies: That
is the end of your break. You need to either invest your profits in the
future, in other technologies, or give it back to us, and we will do it
on behalf of the American people.
They said no. They will protect big oil until they have to pay the
political price. Protect big oil, protect foreign oil. They protect
foreign oil, OPEC. We said the Attorney General should be able to sue a
foreign company or foreign country if they colluded on the price of
oil. Oh, no, they could not do that to big oil either. They are in love
with big oil over there. They are in love with foreign oil.
My people are saying: Enough is enough is enough is enough. It is no
wonder that the American people want change, and they are going to get
change. They are going to get it in November. They are going to bring
it to us. They are going to bring us change.
The former oil men in the Bush administration have been uninterested
in taking on the unchecked speculation. This vote reflects the
administration. That is it. They all marched together.
Well, I think they are marching off a plank. The American people are
smart and getting smarter every day. They know the pain they are
feeling at the pump has a cost. They understand the speculation on
futures. We address that. We address that in the legislation on which
they voted no.
We said: You cannot take money and speculate on futures in an out-of-
town market, an out-of-country market. You have to have transparency.
Oh, no, they do not want transparency. That would be bad for the oil
companies.
If anyone ever says to you: There is no difference between Democrats
and Republicans, look at the debate we had on global warming, look at
the vote on global warming, and look at the vote we had today. There is
an enormous difference. And it has to do with whose side you are on. In
the case today, it was are you on the side of big oil and foreign oil
or are you on the side of the American people? It is pretty clear.
You have to look at Iraq. We have been in Iraq more than 5 long
years. Do you remember what President Bush said when he went in? He
said Iraqi oil would pay for the reconstruction of Iraq. He did. And
look at what we have spent on this war. We are going broke on this war.
We are into it longer than we were in World War II.
We are looking at trillions of dollars at the end of the day in the
actual cost of the war, the cost of the reconstruction, the cost of
taking care of our beautiful, brave, courageous, and incomparable men
and women who are coming home in desperate shape.
What happened to George Bush's promise? They stand up, we stand down.
Well, I think they are standing up. Why are we not standing down? And
why did the oil not work out? Why were we not able to pay for
reconstruction from the price of the oil?
It is very simple: We have had a destabilization in the region
because of the war, and that contributed to these high oil prices. What
a disaster--a disaster, a disaster, a disaster.
We would have today, had we had the opportunity to move forward on
our legislation, not only sent a signal which could have done
something, we could have investigated these companies for the kinds of
illegal actions I believe some of them are taking. We could have gone
after companies and countries for collusion. We could have gone after
these excess profits and said: Look, we want everyone to do well, but
let's have some fairness. I will tell you, the American people are not
going to stand for it.
So we have had a very interesting few days. And my friend, the
ranking member from Oklahoma, says how he is so excited. Friday was his
best day--his best day--his best day--when a majority of the Senate
said, yes, let's take up global warming legislation, and he opposed it.
His days are numbered on this point. All we need is six more Senators
who are different than the many on the other side, and we are going to
get that. People want this. We know 89 percent of the people want us to
address global warming.
When we do it in the right way, we will send a signal that America is
ready to lead. America is ready to work with the world so that we get
off of foreign oil. We are not dependent on countries we do not want to
be dependent on; we are not dependent on big companies that can care
less about our families. They do not care one whit about our families.
The executives are making millions and millions and millions of dollars
every year on salaries, on bonuses, on expense accounts.
Well, the average family in America is struggling. So I hope the
American people are watching. Last week we had a monumental vote, the
high water mark. But they stopped us. Today, we had a good vote also,
but they stopped us. They stopped us from doing anything about gas
prices, and their answer is drill in a wildlife reserve which, at most,
gives us 6 months of oil, and, by the way, destroys a gift from God
that a Republican President said is not an answer.
That is feeding the addiction. Are there places in America we could
drill? Yes, there are. But what we need is a whole different long-term
strategy. And that long-term strategy and fighting global warming will
throw us off this dependance. That will make us a leader in the world.
That will create green jobs, technologies we can export, and we will
have an economic renaissance in the Nation.
We will be the leader the world again when it comes to the
environment and the good-paying jobs. In the short term, we need to go
after the speculators like we wanted to do today. We need to go after
companies and countries who are colluding. These are the things we need
to do.
We were ready, willing, and able to do it today. In closing I will
say this: Whose side are you on? That is a question that every one of
us has to ask ourselves. It ought to be: I am on the side of the
American people, of America's families, of America's middle class, who
is getting squeezed.
It ought not be: I am on the side of big oil. And my Republican
friends on the other side again, on the vote last week and this vote,
have chosen sides. And the American people will decide who they want to
have leading the country.
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. Salazar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
[[Page 11934]]
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we have had some unusual developments in
the Senate in recent days. No sooner had the majority in the Senate
moved to the cap-and-trade bill, for which they were demanding the
debate be limited and utilizing a procedure by the Democratic majority
leader to basically fill the tree, which eliminates free debate of
amendments on the bill--this was a piece of legislation that was
claimed to be one of the most important to be offered in the Senate.
In the early 1990s, when the clean air act amendments were passed,
131 amendments were disposed of during that debate, and it took 5 weeks
on the floor. This bill has more far-reaching and pernicious
ramifications than the Clean Air Act Amendments. Yet they were going to
end the debate and begun to spin the issue as if the Republicans were
filibustering the bill. That is what they said repeatedly: Republicans
were filibustering the bill. But in truth we wished to talk about the
bill. We asked to be able to do so and use the 30 hours which Senate
rules allow to discuss the legislation, and our request was treated
with great horror, as if this were somehow a plan to reject a
discussion of the legislation.
Well, no sooner had we done that and gotten through that, and the
majority leader filled the tree to limit real amendments on the bill--
amendments he did not approve--then, the majority leader came forward
and moved to move off the bill, to move away from cap and trade--the
centerpiece of their philosophy about what is happening in energy in
America today--and he wanted to move to their Energy bill, which I
think can legitimately be referred to, in utilizing senatorial license,
as a no-energy bill. I will talk about that in a minute.
It is not an energy bill. It is not going to produce any energy. It
is weak to a degree that is breathtaking. It is not what the American
people are upset about. It would not come close to helping us deal with
the serious problems we face.
So I would say, this is a weird kind of event here. The no-energy
bill I understand they would like to move to--and wanted to move to--
would authorize the U.S. Government to sue OPEC nations that are
withholding and reducing supplies of oil on the world market in the way
we would sue an American company that was manipulating the market by
withholding products or otherwise colluding to fix prices. Now, that is
exactly what OPEC is doing. What they are doing is unacceptable, and it
needs sustained, relentless leadership by this administration and this
Congress to stand up to OPEC and confront that because they are
effectively raising the price of oil by restricting supply. I
understand other nations are seeing declines in production as well,
including Mexico and Russia. So we are creating shortages in the
marketplace, allowing people to make large amounts of money--
corporations and others--but the people who are primarily making the
money are oil-producing nations. Go look at the skyscrapers they are
building in the desert, the billions and billions of dollars they are
receiving from us as a result of these high prices, as a result of
tripling the price of oil on the world marketplace from the forties
just a couple years ago to now over $130 a barrel. So you were getting
$40 for each barrel of oil one year, and a couple years later you are
now getting $130 for each barrel in your small country. The bigger
countries, of course, make more money because they produce and sell
more oil.
We are sending overseas each year from our Nation $500 billion a year
to purchase the oil that comes into our country. It is half the trade
deficit we have--half of it--just to purchase this oil. It is not
getting better, and we have no policy before us to legitimately do
something about this other than the one Senator Domenici and Senator
McConnell and the Republican leadership offered a few weeks ago, which
was rejected.
Let me explain what this no-energy bill and its NOPEC provision would
do. We would sue OPEC nations for refusing to increase their
production. Now, how you get jurisdiction over a sovereign nation--the
Presiding Officer, a former attorney general, as I have been in a
previous life, knows jurisdiction may sound like a little thing. It is
not such a little thing to get jurisdiction over a sovereign nation to
order them to produce more oil out of their ground.
But I would submit to you, the idea is so weak and so implausible and
so unenforceable that it would be a laughable thing if it were not so
serious because we do have a problem with OPEC nations and others who
are fixing the price of oil.
See, oil production is an essential part, I would suggest--and I
think most any court would conclude--of sovereignty. A sovereign nation
can produce as much of its oil as it wants to produce. You cannot make
them produce more oil because you would like them to. They are not like
an American corporation, subject to the jurisdiction of the court. Part
of the protections of the laws of America, they become subject to
lawsuits--but not a foreign nation.
We do not want them suing us to say: You ought to open ANWR--or
perhaps we might. Open Alaska. Open offshore. Now, that has, perhaps, a
lawsuit that might have some merit. Or maybe sue the Congress for
voting not to produce more oil and gas off our shores over the years.
At least you could get jurisdiction over Congress.
So this is not a serious response, I will say to you. It is not.
Now, in addition, they propose in this Energy bill to tax the oil
companies, but taxing the oil companies will not produce more energy.
You can take this to the bank. It is a concept of universal acceptance.
When you tax something, you get less of it. What we need in this
country is more energy, not less. We need more cleanly produced, clean
American energy. That is what we need more of. That is what people are
complaining to me about.
When I go back home and talk to my constituents, they are upset. They
are outraged. According to the national reports that came out
yesterday, the people in my home county in Alabama--the citizens
there--pay a larger percentage of their income to buy gasoline than any
other county in America. It is because they are rural, they have low
wages. They do not compete with the big-city wages, and they have to
travel so far to work.
That is a very painful thing. It brings it home to me personally. I
filled up our smaller car this weekend, and it cost $61. People have
larger cars. They bought them years ago. They cannot just go out and
sell their SUV today--what price would they get?--sell it so they could
buy some Prius. Where are they going to get the money to do that? We
would like them to. We would like them to move to those kinds of
vehicles in the future, but it is not possible today.
So the ``masters of the universe'' who think we can pass a bill and
allow the price of energy to be exceedingly high and that the people
will adjust their habits so they can reduce the price of oil, are not
in the real world. Let's get with it.
I tell you, my constituents are unhappy, and they want us to do
something to confront, in a realistic way, the surge of prices that are
impacting their budgets very seriously. They also understand these
rising prices that are taking money out of their budget are also
impacting the businesses they deal with and see and, perhaps, work for
and it is making us less competitive in the world marketplace and it
places us in a position to see our economy sink in general and it puts
at risk their job. It affects how many hours they might work a week and
whether they can get overtime or whether they get a bonus. That is what
people are worried about.
So what do we have before us? A cap-and-trade bill that is
guaranteed, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, to drive
up the cost of gasoline $1.40 a gallon to meet Kyoto-type agreements we
did not sign and we have not approved. That is not what people are
telling me they want us to do. They want us to produce more clean
American energy.
Well, I hate to be partisan about this, but I think we need to talk
about how we got here, what happened in this country to get us in as
bad a shape as
[[Page 11935]]
we are. The trends have not been good in terms of a rising demand for
oil and energy and a not-rising-so-fast supply, but there are things we
could and should have done and some things we did 2 years ago that are
being reversed.
In 2005, for example, this Congress, when Senator Pete Domenici
chaired the Energy Committee, recognized the potential of oil shale in
the Energy Policy Act that became law. The act identified oil from the
shale rock out in the West as a strategically important asset and
called for its development. Yet, last year, the Democratic-controlled
Congress, led by the House of Representatives, put in language that
blocked and reversed the development of this abundant resource despite
the surging price of oil and gasoline.
In the recently passed Energy Independence and Security Act, the
House-sponsored section 526 prohibits any Federal agency from
contracting to procure any alternative or synthetic fuel that produces
greater life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than those produced from
traditional fuels. This language prohibits the Federal Government from
contracting to produce and use oil shale and coal-to-liquids. This
provision is misguided and should be repealed immediately.
Now, let me tell my colleagues--I know the Presiding Officer is
familiar with a number of these issues--a representative of U.S. Air
Force was in my office a few weeks ago discussing a contract they had
with a company that would take coal--we have 250 years of coal in
America. It is an American energy source. You can heat that coal and
off comes a gas which can be converted through a known and proven
process to a liquid, and they were going to use it in their airplanes
to fly U.S. aircraft with it. But the Air Force representative told me
the language in section 526 had blocked them. Coal-to-liquids derived
fuel is a fabulously clean fuel. It actually cleans the engine, so when
you use this fuel, the pollutants and waste products have been taken
out, and it is a very pure fuel they burn, and the Air Force was
expecting to be able to bring this fuel into the U.S. Department of
Defense for around $85 a barrel. That is well below the more-than-$130
a barrel cost that is on the world marketplace today, and it is a
source of energy that does not leave the U.S. Air Force dependent on
foreign sources of oil to fuel our Nation's aircraft in the defense of
America. But this effort has been blocked by the Democratic majority.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act, which Senator Domenici led when he was
chairman of the Energy Committee, also directed the Bureau of Land
Management to lease Federal lands for oil shale research projects.
There are approximately 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale rock,
but it is hard to get out. It is not easy to get out. It takes some
effort to produce that, but some major companies are prepared to invest
billions of dollars to prove that it can be brought out well below the
current world price of oil. I would have thought we would have been
delighted to see this go forward--at least in an experimental way--and
see how that would work out. But oh, no. This Congress, again with a
Democratic majority, acted to block the development and the carrying
out of this provision that would promote oil shale. The Senate-
sponsored section 433 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act--this was
the monumental appropriations bill that was about this thick. They
slipped language in, in conference, to take care of that. It would
prohibit funds from being used to implement any leasing program
directed to the Bureau of Land Management, as had been approved in
2005, effectively stopping this program.
I will just say that is frustrating. We are sort of in a manner of
disconnect here to an extraordinary degree. The American people want us
to do something. Oil shale: Well, it is not going to be easy, but this
is not a dreamland idea. It absolutely can work. One company is using
the same technology that was used by the oil sands industry in Canada
that has proven to be quite commercially feasible. We need to be
testing this because 1.8 trillion barrels of oil in oil shale would be
enough for 100 years of oil--actually, 200 years of oil at our current
rate. So oil shale, if we could make that breakthrough, would make us
completely independent of foreign oil. We have huge reserves offshore,
as the Senator from Louisiana knows. He is out there. He is in
Louisiana, and he sees the production that survived Hurricane Katrina,
and as a result, we were able to get those systems back on line with no
oil spills or damage to the environment.
I thank the Chair for letting me share this frustration. I don't know
where we are going now, but I know one thing: This Congress does not
need to leave this energy debate without creating some policies that
allow for more production of clean American energy. We can do that. We
are going to continue using oil and gas for many years to come. Why in
the world would we want 60-plus percent of it to be foreign oil? Why
wouldn't we want to at least produce what we can at home--and really we
can produce quite a lot at home. It is very frustrating that attempts
to do that have been blocked by persons whose thinking, I believe, on
this issue is confused and not in the public interest.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in the year 64 A.D., there was a
tremendous fire in Rome, and legend has it that the Emperor Nero
fiddled while Rome burned. Well, I am afraid that if we continue to
fiddle in the Congress while gas prices continue to go up and up and
hurt all of our constituents in a deep abiding way, Nero will outpace
us in terms of his legendary action compared to our inaction.
We are truly fiddling while this enormous crisis of rising gasoline
prices hits every family we purport to represent. We are doing nothing
significant, nothing important to address this crisis.
Why do I say that? Well, when this new Democratically led Congress
took office a couple of Januaries ago, prices at the pump were about
$2.33. That new leadership of the Congress--the Democratic leader in
the Senate as well as the Democratic leadership in the House--said that
this was unacceptable. They vowed that this was a major issue they
would address, that they would attack in a focused, meaningful way.
Well, a year and a half later, things have changed. The price at the
pump is now about $4 a gallon. It has gone up and up, and this Congress
has done little to nothing.
To add insult to injury, the Democratic leadership in the Senate
proposed legislation today that centered around major measures that can
clearly change the price at the pump, such as a windfall profits tax
and language to sue OPEC. I find this insulting, and I believe the
American people do, because that sort of political demagoguery and
posturing is no substitute for real energy policy.
Yesterday, I was in my home State of Louisiana. I had two townhall
meetings. About a week before that, I was all around the State; I had
nine others. Folks asked again and again: When is Congress going to
act? When is Congress going to do something meaningful about these
escalating gasoline prices? I laid out my ideas. They were reacted to
in a very positive way, particularly the need for us to do more for
ourselves right here at home to produce more energy.
Certainly nobody in those audiences had very kind words to say about
OPEC. Nobody was standing up and lauding the big oil companies. But by
the same token, they know the difference between political rhetoric and
posturing and real energy policy. They certainly know that a bill to
sue OPEC and try to impose a Carter-era windfall profits tax on big oil
companies isn't going to do a darn thing, at least on the positive side
of the equation, to stabilize and lower gasoline prices at the pump. It
is going to have no meaningful impact, certainly, to produce more
energy and bring those prices down.
So I come to the floor to urge all of us--Democrats and Republicans--
to come together to get real and to act in
[[Page 11936]]
the face of what is a true economic crisis for millions upon millions
of American families.
As I say, it is easy to agree that OPEC or big oil is a cheap
political target. It is easy to agree that it may be popular
superficially to kick them around and to politically bash those easy
targets. But I truly believe the American people are smarter than that
and can distinguish between political posturing, political rhetoric,
and a real energy policy. I think it is particularly true with the
windfall profits tax proposed by the Democratic leadership today.
Now, why do I say that is not a real energy policy and it won't lead
to stabilizing and reducing prices? Well, there are three main reasons:
First, the entire notion of a windfall profits tax is a misnomer. Oil
company profits are very big when you look at them in dollar terms. Why
is that? Mostly for one simple reason: Oil company activity--
exploration and production--is enormously expensive. As a result of
that, the major oil companies are enormously big companies--big
economic actors--so the dollar terms we bandy about having to do with
their activity is enormous. But, of course, when you talk about profit,
you can't talk in simple dollar terms; you have to talk in percentages.
So what are those percentages? Are they, in fact, windfall profits?
Well, the last year for which we have data is full calendar year 2007,
and in that calendar year oil and gas companies' profits were, on
average, 8.3 percent. How does that compare to everybody else? Well,
for all of the U.S. manufacturing sector--a sector we always decry as
in decline, being outsourced, being out-competed by competitors such as
China and India coming on line--that entire sector had a profit of
about 7.3 percent. If you take out U.S. auto companies, which have
historically low profits, unfortunately, then the entire U.S.
manufacturing sector made a profit of 8.9 percent. So these outrageous
windfall profits folks talk about of the oil companies are, in fact,
very much in line with that: the whole manufacturing sector, 7.3
percent compared to 8.3 percent. Take out auto manufacturers, and, in
fact, then the profit rate is higher, 8.9 percent compared to 8.3
percent.
The second reason this entire focus and argument is silly and not
real energy policy is when you look at whom you are hurting. Now, the
proponents of these sorts of measures talk about going after windfall
profits as if oil company executives own it all. Well, they own some--
1.5 percent of the companies we are talking about. Who owns the rest?
Well, over half of oil company shares are owned by mutual fund
companies which are widely owned by Americans. That manages to account
for nearly 55 million American households. Median income of these
households, by the way, is $70,000 or less.
Pension funds, both public and private, hold 27 percent of the shares
in the energy industry. That means 129 million pension fund
participants, who have accounts worth an average of about $63,000, own
the companies we are talking about. Twenty-eight million of those
pension funds are for public employees, including teachers, police,
fire personnel, soldiers, and government workers. So these are the
folks who own these companies that we are supposed to go after.
The final and most important and compelling reason this notion of a
windfall profits tax is a red herring is that it won't produce more
energy. It won't stabilize or lower prices at the pump. It won't help
the situation. It will, in fact, make it worse.
Why do I say this? Because we have historical experience to turn to
to see what happened. Under President Carter, we tried this experiment.
In terms of boosting energy production, stabilizing or lowering prices,
it was a miserable failure. From 1980 to 1988, we had a windfall
profits tax. That reduced domestic oil production by up to 8 percent,
while dependence on foreign oil grew over that time up to 13 percent.
So instead of this sort of tax approach to the oil companies' tax
approach to energy, we need to produce more energy, more supply, to
stabilize and lessen prices. As my colleague from Alabama mentioned a
few minutes ago, one of the first rules of economics is, if you tax an
activity, you are going to drive it down, lessen that activity; you are
not going to drive it up.
If somehow this tax plan--windfall profits tax--or the myriad other
tax proposals the Democratic leadership has brought to the floor would
help solve our energy problems, I would be all for it. But it is going
to make us produce less energy, not more. What will that do? That won't
stabilize or lower gasoline prices at the pump. It will drive them up.
Let's get serious for once. As the American families we represent
face a true crisis, let's put people ahead of politics. Let's put sound
policy ahead of political posturing. Let's focus on what can make a
positive impact. We need to do much in this regard, on the supply side
as well as the demand side--conservation, greater efficiency, more R&D,
and new fuel sources. But at the same time we need to focus on the
demand side, on what can help us produce more safe, clean energy here
at home. We have those resources here at home. We can access them
safely and in an environmentally friendly way. But in order to do that,
Congress needs to get out of the way and allow States and private
industry to do just that.
Offshore is a big piece of that puzzle. That is why I have brought to
the Senate floor my proposal that says if these outrageous prices at
the pump actually hit $5 a gallon, then we will allow exploration and
production in our ocean bottoms off our U.S. coast--but only if two
things apply: First, the host State involved would have to want this
activity. So the Governor and State legislature in that host State
would have to say, yes, we want this activity off of our coast, we want
to be part of the solution to help meet the Nation's energy needs.
Secondly, that host State would get a fair share of the royalty, or
revenue, from that ocean bottom production, 37\1/2\ percent, building
on the precedent, the policy we set 2 years ago in opening some limited
new areas in the Gulf of Mexico. That actually does something about
energy. That actually would increase supply right here at home, would
lessen our dependence on dangerous foreign sources, would help
stabilize and bring down prices at the pump--something the political
posturing of suing OPEC or putting in a windfall profits tax, a Carter-
era idea, on the big oil companies would not do.
Let's not fiddle while Rome burns. Let's get serious. Let's act
respectfully to the situation, the real crisis so many Americans face.
Let's come together in a bipartisan way and act, not posture, and
debate and talk but act with real energy solutions. We need to do this,
as I said, across the board, on the supply side and on the demand side
to lessen demand through conservation, increased fuel efficiency, and
new energy sources.
We need to come together and act now, rather than simply giving
political speeches and endlessly posturing and going after easy
political targets.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about American
energy independence, energy self-sufficiency, and specifically to talk
about clean coal and clean coal technology.
I have introduced a number of constructive amendments to the
Lieberman-Warner climate change legislation. But one of the most
important of those was the need to address the future of clean coal
technology.
If this body chooses to pursue cap-and-trade legislation, we need to
ensure that the Senate includes provisions to bring about the energy
security our Nation needs. The so-called cap-and-trade legislation
would impose greenhouse gas emissions and mandates that are unrealistic
in scope and in timing.
In a time of high energy prices, in a time of housing deflation, in a
time of food inflation, taxpayers cannot afford misguided policies that
hamstring our economy. Our competitors--India and China--are not
constraining their economies with carbon limits. Global issues deserve
global responses. Blindly
[[Page 11937]]
imposing Government regulations will force heavy burdens on utility
consumers, on labor, and on American families.
Last week, the record was clearly laid out that this proposal raises
consumer prices through Government mandates. I believe most Americans
favor policy approaches that balance America's need for energy with
environmental protection.
In order to avoid substantial economic fallout, Federal funding is
not only warranted to help American commerce meet this challenge, it is
essential.
Despite the recent pace in developing clean coal technologies,
America cannot afford to simply give up on this challenge. Coal is
abundant. Coal is affordable. Coal is reliable. Coal is secure as an
energy source. Coal can also become a very clean fuel.
As noted in the May 30 front-page article in the New York Times,
America will continue to rely heavily on coal-fired electric generation
for decades to come. The New York Times reporters are merely
recognizing what is abundantly evident from official Government
predictions.
The article also aptly notes that coal-fired generation holds great
promise for reduced carbon dioxide emissions. America's energy policy
must not simply deliver sustainable energy; America's energy future
must incorporate a vision for a safer, cleaner, and healthier
environment. Clean, coal-fired electric generation must be an integral
part.
The challenge before us is significant. Reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from coal-fired powerplants will be possible through first
capturing carbon dioxide emissions and then sequestering them
underground. Both will take time and both will take money.
In order to achieve this challenge, the Federal Government and
private industry must partner in funding research and technological
innovation. Timing is critical. America needs to make a serious and
substantial investment in research and developing commercial
technology.
In order to achieve energy security and a clean environment, the
Federal Government must demonstrate its commitment with targeted,
upfront financial support. We must show leadership, not merely dictate
flawed policies and hope for the best.
What does this mean? If Congress mandates reduced emissions, it is
incumbent upon us to also provide the policies to allow our own economy
to succeed.
Proven, commercially available, cost-effective technologies must be
developed with respect to carbon capture and sequestration. These
technologies must be efficient, effective, and allow America to
continue to compete globally.
The amendment I have filed would direct $50 billion in revenue from
emission allowances--$40 billion for the demonstration and deployment
for carbon capture technologies, and $10 billion for large-scale
geologic carbon storage demonstration projects.
This is an enormous investment, but it is also necessary. This
amendment is technology neutral. It would not rely on Government to
dictate the favored type of carbon capture mechanism. Incentives would
be provided by the choice of the recipient as a loan guarantee, through
incremental cost sharing, or in the form of electricity production
payments for each kilowatt hour produced.
This amendment includes aggressive but achievable technological
milestones. It also establishes a timeline for new projects over the
next 7, 8, or 10 years. This amendment is reasonable, rational,
aggressive, and achievable.
Making this investment comes down to a choice between two things:
one, Congress taking responsibility for the mandates proposed; two,
regulating the economy and turning its back on ratepayers, on
manufacturers, and on American families.
Without investment in coal, it will mean higher heating and higher
cooling bills that will continue to ripple through the economy, picking
winners and losers.
Last week, some Members of this Chamber insisted upon policies that
would raise prices at the pump through regulation. Today, they tried to
address the runup in gasoline prices by raising taxes.
I will tell you that the rising prices of gasoline are hurting the
people of Wyoming and the people across this country--truckers,
ranchers, commuters, and all American families.
I adamantly disagree with the so-called ``solutions'' proposed by the
majority, which were higher taxes and more regulation. I urge my
colleagues to allow real solutions to today's energy prices, including
American exploration and investment in American technology. It is time
to enact a prosperous path for the future of America's energy and
America's economy.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his
comments. He is well aware of the spirit of community in Wyoming, which
relies on jobs, like everywhere else. He makes points about how
important all of the energy sources in Wyoming are, and particularly
coal, and the opportunities we have for the American people to make
coal even better, even the clean coal we have in Wyoming.
Tribute to David Trowbridge of Lingle, Wyoming
Mr. President, I rise today to talk a little bit about some of that
spirit of community in Wyoming. It also has to do with the spirit of
community in Mississippi.
Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, I went to visit down there and see
what had happened. I definitely had to admit that Louisiana had been
drowned. Then I got to see Mississippi, and I saw they not only were
drowned but they were blown away. I saw one place where there were oak
trees that were easily 2 feet in diameter that had been snapped off
about 6 feet above the ground from the wind. The devastation down there
is almost impossible to imagine. I always say a picture is worth a
thousand words, but being on the ground is worth a thousand pictures.
We got to see that. It still is an area that is in recovery.
Today, I wish to recognize the actions of one Wyoming man who left
his home out West to go help his fellow Americans down South. He has
done more than simply lend a hand to a small Mississippi town
devastated by Hurricane Katrina. He lent his heart, and he is an
example for all of us to follow.
David Trowbridge of Lingle, WY--one of our small towns--is quite a
hero. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the gulf coast in 2005,
he joined a group of volunteers from his church on a trip to Bay Saint
Louis, MS, where they provided aid to storm victims. There, David
witnessed firsthand the utter destruction of the hurricane--the lost
loved ones, the wrecked homes, and the destroyed livelihoods.
Upon returning to Wyoming, Mr. Trowbridge vowed to go back to
Mississippi and help as many people as possible. I have learned from
members of his small church in Lingle that Mr. Trowbridge is a man of
his word. He did go back, and he is still there helping.
In June of 2006, he purchased a motor home, loaded his tools and
moved from Wyoming to Bay Saint Louis indefinitely. I have to tell you,
we hope he comes back before the census because Wyoming can use the
population. Since then, Mr. Trowbridge has spent his time working with
First Baptist Church to help others rebuild their homes and their
lives.
In all, he has worked on 62 houses in the Bay Saint Louis area. From
roofing and laying tile to painting and plumbing, Mr. Trowbridge has
provided critical building repair services to many grateful families.
He has also played an integral role in training the thousands of
volunteer teams that flocked to Bay Saint Louis to assist with the
rebuilding process. He teaches the volunteers the skills they need to
repair homes. Then he works side by side with them, helping the
volunteers to finish their projects and achieve their goals.
Mr. Trowbridge has changed countless lives through the giving of his
time and labor, and he has done it all without asking anything in
return. His
[[Page 11938]]
work is completely volunteer. Aside from a few donations here and
there, Mr. Trowbridge has funded this journey through personal savings.
He has reached into his own pockets to give new hope to people who lost
theirs in the storm. That goes to show the depth of his selflessness.
Mr. Trowbridge represents the true spirit of giving that we in
Wyoming know so well, and I am proud he is sharing that Wyoming sense
of community with those affected by Hurricane Katrina. He is an
inspiration of hope and generosity, and his effort serves as a
testament to what just one man can accomplish when he sets out to make
a positive impact on other people's lives.
Mr. Trowbridge is a man of faith and heart, and we can all learn from
the example he set. I ask my Senate colleagues to join me in thanking
him for all the work he has done and the hope he has brought to Bay
Saint Louis, MS.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Wyoming for bringing to the attention of the Senate the good works of a
man who embodies compassion, sacrifice, and service.
A few weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi gulf coast,
David Trowbridge of Lingle, WY, traveled with a group of his fellow
church members to Bay Saint Louis, MS, to help the victims of this
terribly destructive disaster. Because of the extent of the destruction
he saw and the enormous challenges that confronted the storm victims,
David Trowbridge purchased a motor home and moved to Bay Saint Louis so
he could devote full time to the recovery effort.
He helped rebuild properties that had been destroyed or seriously
damaged, including housing for other volunteers who needed a place to
stay and help. His carpentry skills have been a valuable resource, not
only to help rebuild homes but which also enabled him to train hundreds
of unskilled volunteers to assist in the rebuilding efforts. These
volunteer teams have worked on over 1,400 homes in the communities of
Bay Saint Louis and Waveland.
People in Bay Saint Louis refer to David as a fixture of the
community. They have praised him as a hero. In fact, he is on a first-
name basis at homes and businesses all over town.
The Mississippi gulf coast was devastated by Hurricane Katrina and is
still struggling to recover. But were it not for the unselfish, hard
work and dedication of David Trowbridge, my State would not be as far
along as we are in the recovery process.
Thank you, David Trowbridge.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for
joining me in this tribute today for David Trowbridge. We do this as a
reminder that there are still problems that need to be fixed from
August 2005. The people down there are very appreciative of the help
they get. Of course, we are reminded, as there are tornados hitting all
over the United States, that there are people in other parts of the
country who need help as well.
It is the American spirit to reach out and help other people. Often
it is done without any kind of a call, any kind of notice. People hear
about these needs and they show up and they do the work. We need to
keep them all in our minds and our prayers and, when we get the
opportunity, to give a little bit of special mention of somebody who
goes out of their way, takes money out of their own pocket to help out.
That is what America is about--people helping people. David Trowbridge
is an outstanding example of that.
I thank the Senator from Mississippi, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
(The remarks of Mrs. Dole pertaining to the introduction of S. 3108
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for
whatever time I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, to review where too many families are
today in our great country, we have 324,000 people--324,000 people--who
have lost good-paying American jobs just since this January. Just this
January, not last January, not the January before or the January before
but just in the last few months, 324,000 more Americans--middle-class
Americans, working hard every day and trying to keep up with the gas
prices, trying to keep up with the mortgage payment, pay for food, send
the kids to college, probably having a bigger health care bill--have
lost their job and gone, probably, on unemployment compensation to be
able to help their family to be able to continue. And, Mr. President,
72,000 of those individuals and families impacted come from my great
State of Michigan, with 49,000 jobs having been lost since May, 17,000
of those lost in Michigan since April.
At the same time, we all know gas prices are now at $4 and going up,
foreclosures nationally are over 702,000 homes this year, with over
31,000 of those in Michigan.
All of that is to say that we have a picture now of middle-class
Americans, of those who believe in America, who are and who have been
working hard every day, who want the American Dream for themselves and
their families finding themselves being hit over and over again with
one cost after another. Even those who have not lost their jobs are
concerned that they may. Will the plant stay open? Will the employers
keep the same number of people on when their costs are going up? Too
many people have gone from $28 an hour to $14 an hour, or $30 an hour
to $10 an hour.
What we are seeing across the country is people who are desperately
concerned about their ability to keep their standard of living and to
remain in the middle class of this country. In many cases they are
desperately concerned about simply being able to put food on the table,
being able to get the money to put the gas in the gas tank so they can
go look for the next job.
With this backdrop--and with millions of Americans saying: What about
me? What about my family? What about some kind of action that will help
my family, and understand what we are going through right now? With all
of that as a backdrop, what we have seen today, once again, is
absolutely outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. Two very important
bills were brought forward where we simply asked to be able to proceed
to discuss them, and once again the Republican minority has said no.
They blocked everything, stopped everything. No. No.
There is no sense of urgency, no sense of urgency about gas prices,
no sense of urgency about getting off of foreign oil and energy
independence. There is no sense of urgency about what is happening to
families every single day.
It is amazing to me, when we look at the numbers. We have in fact had
so many Republican filibusters we have to Velcro the chart. In the
interests of conservation, in the interests of not having to print up
multiple charts a day and waste good old posterboard, we actually have
had to Velcro the numbers because they change so much. Twice today--we
have now well exceeded what was a 2-year high in previous Senates in
the over 200-year history of our great country. We did that last year.
What does that mean? This all sounds like insider process kinds of
things--it is just folks talking about partisan politics. The reality
is we are talking about whether the Senate is going to be able to move
forward to debate issues and solve problems that people care
desperately about. They do not care whether this is an election year or
not an election year. They
[[Page 11939]]
don't want excuses. They want us to get something done because they are
trying to figure out how in the world they are going to be able to keep
things going and make ends meet for their family in this great country
we call America.
We have seen 75 different times that there have been filibusters that
have been blocking our ability to actually get something done. What was
filibustered today? What efforts were made to block us today? First, a
very important bill, the Consumer-First Energy Act, to take on what is
happening on gas prices. I know, talking with my family, home this
weekend--folks were looking at me, saying: What in the world is going
on? What can be done?
We have put together legislation multiple times to address it, short
term and long term, as it relates to gas prices which are so
outrageously high. But over and over again we are blocked. Why? Because
the oil companies do not like it. That is what this is about.
Unfortunately, the oil companies do not want to see us move in the
direction of being able to tackle issues of whether there is, in fact,
price gouging; whether there are in fact issues around speculation;
whether we are going to have competition with alternatives to oil. They
do not want us to do that. They do not want us to tackle the issue of
the tax subsidies they receive.
What we see instead of action, as we could have had today, we see
this past week oil prices at $140 a barrel, almost twice the price from
last year. It is almost twice the price from last year, and OPEC says
it could be $200 this year. Think about that when you are trying to get
to work, trying to maybe take the kids to camp for that week or maybe
trying to go to the grocery store or go looking for work or maybe take
mom or dad or the kids to the doctor. We are talking about a huge
burden that is building up and up.
Unfortunately, while gas prices now go over $4 a gallon, we are
seeing an effort to, one more time, block commonsense efforts to do
something about it for the families of America. Unfortunately, on the
other side of the aisle, there has been a desire to make sure that we
continue big oil tax breaks rather than addressing what our families
need. Last year the big oil companies pocketed $124 billion in profits.
It is fine to make a profit. We want companies to do well, to make a
profit. But we also want to make sure when that is happening they are
reinvesting in the economy, reinvesting in creating more supply. We
want them to be reinvesting in new energy. Unfortunately, that is not
happening.
We also want to have tax policy that makes sense in terms of where we
want to invest in new technologies. The oil companies are doing pretty
well, I suggest, right now. I do not think my tax money or your tax
money or the tax money of any of the folks here or any of the folks
around the country needs to be used to incentivize big oil, which is
exactly what is happening right now.
They are doing pretty well. We have been trying and we have been
blocked through Republican filibusters, to take away subsidies,
taxpayer subsidies for oil companies and move them over to subsidize
new, growing industries, green options, alternative energy--wind,
solar, advanced battery technologies, consumer tax credits to buy the
next generation of vehicles, the next generation of appliances. Those
are the kinds of tax credits that encourage people to focus on energy
efficiency and conservation in their homes, those things that will move
us in the right direction. That is what we have been trying to do. And
we have been blocked.
The bill that was stopped also creates a permanent tax on windfall
profits for the major oil companies. If they are not going to invest in
America and invest in our future and buy the next airplane or put it
into more big bonuses, then we need to have a windfall profits tax that
will redirect those dollars back so we can take them and invest in the
future.
I see our distinguished leader on the floor and I am going to suspend
for a moment, if I might. I know he has some important business he
needs to do.
I yield to our leader and ask that I later be recognized to continue
my comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate very much my friend from
Michigan allowing me to do a little business here on the floor of the
Senate. She is such a tremendous Senator. I had the good fortune to be
able to be in Michigan this weekend with her and Senator Levin. What a
team they are. The people of Michigan realize that. It was a wonderful
experience, being there with these two Senators.
The State of Michigan has lots of problems. No one articulates it
better than Senator Stabenow, talking about what is happening to our
country with the loss of manufacturing jobs. Of course, sadly, Michigan
is a poster State for what is happening in the loss of manufacturing
jobs. This is something we must stop, stop the hemorrhaging of these
manufacturing jobs.
I had the good fortune yesterday of meeting with the National
Association of Manufacturers. They recognize, although they have been a
Republican organization in years past, that they are going to have to
start working with us. That doesn't mean they will not keep working
with the Republicans--of course they will--but we have to start working
together and realize the bad shape of our manufacturing sector.
____________________
MOTION TO PROCEED WITHDRAWN--S. 3044
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to S. 3044.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
____________________
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3101
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that S. 3101 be modified with the
changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leadership, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO
PROCEED
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to S. 3101, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act.
This is an act of 2008. I ask we proceed to this on Wednesday, June 11,
following the period of morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leadership, I
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 3101.
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 assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 772, S. 3101, the Medicare
Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.
Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Barbara Boxer,
Benjamin L. Cardin, Bernard Sanders, John F. Kerry,
Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Blanche L. Lincoln, Ken
Salazar, Charles E. Schumer, Ron Wyden, Patrick J.
Leahy, Jeff Bingaman, Debbie Stabenow, John D.
Rockefeller IV, Jack Reed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
[[Page 11940]]
____________________
CONSUMER-FIRST ENERGY ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
Mr. REID. I move to proceed to S. 3044.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, before our leader leaves the floor, I
thank him for his patience and tenacity to continue, despite objection
after objection, as we try to govern on behalf of the people of this
country--whether it be addressing issues of global warming, whether it
be gas prices, whether it be what just happened, which is to bring
forward a Medicare bill that will stop a large cut to physicians all
around the country and affect our ability to have access to health
care. It is a bill that includes the ability to focus on rural health
care and telehealth and e-prescribing and a number of things that will
increase access to health care.
To emphasize what just happened one more time: There was an objection
to moving ahead on something that is important to the American people:
to expand, under Medicare, health care for communities and our seniors.
This goes back to my original point now: 75 Republican filibusters and
counting. It is going to continue and continue, unfortunately, because
there is not the willingness to work together to get things done.
Let me mention two other issues. I mentioned what is happening in
terms of blocking our Consumer-First Energy Act, which focuses on a
number of ways to go after price gouging. The bill would stop
manipulation by greedy oil traders and give the Attorney General the
power to stand up to OPEC nations that are price fixing--a number of
different ways for us to immediately address what is happening to gas
prices on behalf of the American people. That was blocked.
The second thing that was blocked was the Renewable Energy and Job
Creation Act of 2008. This is about jobs. This is about jobs in my
great State of Michigan, in New Jersey, all across this country, based
on the new green economy--production tax credits to build those wind
turbines and solar panels and new vehicles and, again, the consumer tax
credits and investing in the ability for businesses that use the R&D
tax credit to have that continue, to be able to invest in other
economic development tax credits. That is what was blocked--jobs
focused on alternative energy.
So we went after the oil companies. No. We want to put forward a
proposal that will invest in new jobs. No. That is what we are hearing
every day. And every day that is happening, more and more people in my
great State are finding themselves without a job, trying to keep the
lights on, keep food on the table, trying to be able to put gas in
their automobile. And they are looking and saying: What is going on
here? Each month, tens of thousands of people across the country, not
just in Michigan--I mean, we were hit the hardest first, but this is
across the country--are losing their jobs. Hundreds of those are losing
unemployment insurance benefits they paid into.
There seems to be a notion that somehow, if someone is required to go
on unemployment insurance benefits, they will not look for work. Well,
that is about 40 percent of what the average wage is for an individual.
You can barely keep things together. In many cases, you cannot keep
things together. I would suggest that the unemployment insurance
benefit is not a disincentive for folks to work. And obviously people
in my State work hard. They work. They work very hard. Too many are
working two jobs, three jobs, four jobs, trying to piece it together.
But we have never had an economic situation like we have today under
a Republican or Democratic President where there has not been a
willingness in a difficult economic situation to extend unemployment
benefits. Yet President Bush has threatened to veto an extension of
unemployment insurance which we have already passed here in the Senate.
As I indicated before, the numbers are high--324,000 good-paying
American jobs have been lost since January of this year. We also know
there are 8.5 million unemployed workers in America competing for 3.7
million jobs. That is why the bill that was blocked earlier that
invests in new taxation and new technologies, production tax credits to
build new plants, to create new processes, is so important, because
right now we have more than twice as many people looking for work as
there are jobs available. We as a Democratic majority understand that.
We understand that so much of what is happening right now for families
goes to the basic foundation of this economy, which is the ability to
have a good-paying job and to be able to pay those costs that come at
families day after day after day.
In May, the number of Americans who have been out of work for at
least 27 weeks--right now, unemployment goes to 26 weeks--rose to 1.6
million workers; 1.6 million middle-class workers as of May who saw
their benefits exhausted and in most or many cases were not able to
find a job. What happened? What happens to those families? In the past
year, 2.75 million people who are unemployed have exhausted their
benefits.
American families are running out of time. They want us to take
action. There needs to be a sense of urgency about what is going on for
families in this country. It is not that we do not have the ability to
act; there is not the will to act, not the will to join with us in a
bipartisan effort to act. We as Democrats come to the floor every day,
our leader comes to the floor every day, multiple times a day, making
motions to proceed to solve problems through legislation that is
critical for our families. Time after time, all we hear is: I object. I
object. I object.
People in Michigan know what the pain of inaction is like and the
effort to try to hold it together when help is not there. Over the last
year, more than 150,000 people have exhausted their unemployment
benefits, over 10,000 people a month now looking for work but do not
have the support anymore to at least be able to keep things going a
little bit.
But you know it is not just Michigan anymore. Unfortunately, other
States are now catching up. We heard as of last Friday that the
national unemployment rate is now 5.5 percent. When we first started
talking about this, it was 4.9. Now it is up to 5.5, and the experts
tell us they expect it will reach 6.5 percent by January. Alaska,
California, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Nevada, Missouri, Oregon, South
Carolina, Kentucky, and Ohio all have unemployment rates at or above
5.5 percent.
We need to act, not only because it is the right thing to do, the
moral thing to do for our families, but we know that for every $1 that
is spent on unemployment benefits in the economy, the dollars turn over
and the economy is stimulated by $1.64. So there is an opportunity to
not only do the right thing for Americans, which ought to be enough,
but it is also an opportunity to stimulate the economy and one of the
top ways we are told it can be stimulated. In other words, for every $1
we invest to help struggling American families, we get a 64-percent
return on our investment. I would take that. That is a deal worth
making.
So I close by once again calling on the President to join with us at
this critical time in American history where families are being hit in
so many different ways and to say yes to extending unemployment
benefits for those who are out of work but looking very hard to find a
job and are counting on us to do the right thing.
I would love it if we did not have to stand up and change this Velcro
anymore. I would love it if we could just frame this right here--75
Republican filibusters--and stop. But that is not what is happening. We
can do better than that. Certainly, the people in Michigan expect us to
do better than that. I am going to do everything in my power--I know
the Chair will as well--to be able to make good on what people are
asking of us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, like a lot of Members of the Senate, I also
heard
[[Page 11941]]
from my constituents last weekend about high energy prices. I do not
know how any Member of Congress can go back into their congressional
district and their State and not be inundated by people who are very
concerned about the impact high fuel prices are having on their
pocketbooks and on our economy.
In fact, in my State of South Dakota, the studies bear this out. I
think it has a disproportionate impact because it is a rural area. In
rural areas, we are very energy dependent. We drive long distances. We
are very agriculturally dependent in terms of our economy. Tourism is a
big thing in our economy in rural areas. We also, in most cases, have
lower incomes relative to the incomes of people in other parts of the
country. In fact, there are some studies out that suggest that 15
percent, 16 percent on average of a person's income in a rural area is
spent just paying the energy bill. Now, that is something that ought to
concern everybody across this country because even though it might
disproportionally impact rural areas today, it is clearly going to
impact all Americans and continue to impact our economic activities in
this country as time goes on if we do not get our arms around these
escalating and daily increasing energy costs.
I had someone in my office today who said that he has a small
refinery. He said if the cap-and-trade bill we debated last week had
been enacted or passed, immediately they would have seen a 38-cent
increase in the price per gallon of gasoline.
There is a proposal to build a powerplant in my State of South
Dakota, a coal-fired powerplant. I was visiting with some folks last
week in my State who informed me that if, in fact, that cap-and-trade
proposal had passed, it would have tripled the cost to construct that
powerplant, something that is necessary to provide base load energy for
the energy demands and requirements we have in the upper Midwest.
So here we are talking about high energy prices, high fuel prices,
and the only solutions our colleagues are putting on the floor are
solutions that would actually increase fuel costs. The cap-and-trade
proposal last week, by any estimate--and there were 11 studies that
were done of the five cap-and-trade proposals put before or introduced
in the Senate, one which was put before the Senate last week. All 11
studies concluded that if enacted, that proposal would increase fuel
costs, it would increase electricity costs, and it would lead to
negative gross domestic product growth. The question was not if, it was
how much would it increase costs. By as much as a dollar a gallon for
gasoline. There were a number of studies conducted that suggested that
it would cost the economy up to $6 trillion in GDP, negative GDP, as a
result of that cap-and-trade proposal.
So here we are on the floor of the Senate. Everyone, I assume, is
hearing the same thing I am hearing, when they go back to their
respective States, from their constituents: We have high energy prices;
we need some action; we need you to do something about that. And
everything that has been put before the Senate last week and this week
by the Democratic leadership does one thing: increases energy costs.
We had a vote today on an ``energy bill.'' What did it do? It imposed
new taxes on energy. That was tried. That was tried back in the 1980s,
the windfall profits tax. It led to reduced energy production in this
country. The other thing that was talked about today was, well, let's
sue OPEC, let's sue OPEC; that will somehow drive down the cost of
energy.
There is not anything in any of those proposals that does anything to
address the problem because you cannot address this problem, you cannot
fix the energy crisis in this country unless you address the issue of
supply. There is not anything in any of those bills that have been put
forward, that have been put forward by the other side, that addresses
the fundamental issue of supply. I believe the American people
understand that. They understand full well that you do not raise taxes
to get more of something; if you raise taxes, you are going to get less
of something. They realize that we cannot just sort of unilaterally
decide to sue an oil cartel and expect that is going to lead to
additional energy supply in this country.
There is one thing and one thing only that we can do to lower
gasoline prices for people in this country; that is, increase homegrown
domestic energy supplies so that we do not have to rely upon other
nations around the world for our energy.
I wish to share a couple of statistics that I think are important in
this debate. One is that 60 percent of our oil comes from outside the
United States. That means that on any given day we are getting 60
percent of our energy to fuel our automobiles and to keep our economy
going from countries around the world, many of which are run by petro-
dictators who have nothing but hostile and ill intentions toward the
United States. Sixty percent of our oil supply is coming from outside
the United States.
We use 140 billion gallons of gasoline every year in this country. I
point that out because I want to use that to get to another point; that
is, we are generating about 8 billion gallons of renewable energy or
ethanol on an annual basis. At the end of this year, we will be
generating 1 billion gallons in my State of South Dakota alone. But the
studies that have been done have suggested that that 8 billion gallons
of ethanol, out of the 140 billion gallons of fuel we use in this
country, of gasoline we use in this country, has reduced energy prices
by about 15 percent--price per barrel of oil, price per gallon of
gasoline reduced by about 15 percent by the contribution that 8 billion
gallons of ethanol is making to our overall fuel supply.
In today's gasoline prices, 15 percent would be about 50 cents, 60
cents on the gallon. So we have lower fuel prices today than we would
otherwise have as a result of adding to our supply of energy, homegrown
energy, through the hard work and production of our farmers across the
country who raise the corn that is converted into ethanol.
I suggest perhaps the way to address this problem, if, in fact, 8
billion gallons of ethanol has helped reduce gasoline prices by 50
cents a gallon, maybe what we ought to be doing is looking at ways we
can grow additional energy supply. We don't need less biofuels, we need
more. We are going to be moving now from corn-based ethanol into
cellulosic ethanol that can be made from other forms of biomass. We
hope that technology will be progressing quickly enough that it will
enable us to meet the targets we have of 36 billion gallons called for
in the renewable fuels standard. That is what we are doing in the area
of biofuels.
I say that because if we look at what we have in terms of domestic
resources, whether that is biofuels or oil, if we could get some of
that oil into the pipeline, we could do a lot to impact prices people
are paying for a gallon of gasoline. Back in 1995, President Clinton
vetoed a bill passed by Congress that would have allowed for
exploration on the North Slope of Alaska. We have somewhere between 6
and 16 billion barrels of oil on the North Slope underneath the ground.
With modern technology and in an environmentally friendly way,
directional and horizontal drilling, with a minimal imprint on the
surface, we can get access to somewhere between 6 and 16 barrels of
oil. What does that translate into? That translates into 1 million
barrels a day coming into this country--1 million barrels a day. And
you figure a barrel translates into 42 gallons, and of that about half
can be refined into gasoline, a million barrels a day would translate
into about 7 billion gallons of gasoline a year or roughly equivalent
to what we are generating in ethanol. And the 8 billion gallons in
ethanol is reducing the price of gas by about 50 cents a gallon. So if
you do the math, more energy, more supply at the margin is going to
lead to lower cost. That is the fundamental economic rule of supply and
demand that most people understand.
Any of my constituents in South Dakota, if I went home and told them
that the Democratic leadership has put a bill on the floor that is
going to allow us to file lawsuits against OPEC or that is going to
impose new taxes on
[[Page 11942]]
oil exploration, a windfall profits tax, they would say: What does that
do to affect the law of supply and demand? Get more supply in the
marketplace so that we can do something about reducing the price per
gallon of gasoline?
This problem gets addressed when America gets serious about domestic
energy supplies. We have tried again and again to get a vote on
exploration on the North Slope. We have tried again and again to get a
vote on deep sea exploration for energy--all of which has been blocked
in the Senate.
We have even tried to get legislation moved that would expedite the
permitting process for new refineries because we have a shortage of
refining capacity. These are all things that we could be doing that
would help address the supply problem.
I suggest when we get to what we are focusing on that we can do,
there are pieces of legislation on which there is broad agreement. We
passed a bill a couple weeks ago that Senators Ensign and Cantwell
offered of tax extenders that would help promote more investment in
renewable energy. It passed out of the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8,
broad bipartisan support. Why are we not focusing on those things we
can do rather than spending our time having the Democrats throw out
solutions that impose new taxes, new regulations, new bailouts to trial
lawyers, which was included in this bill, an earmark for the Senator
from New York at $1.2 billion, all of which we know are not going to
pass?
We aren't going to get the votes to get that sort of thing through.
But there are things we can be doing, such as extending the production
tax credit for wind, which was included in the Energy bill to which I
just referred. Those are the things we ought to be looking at. What can
we do to add to the supply of electricity, to add to the supply of
fuels so that we don't have to get 60 percent of our energy from
outside the United States, so we are actually doing something that will
in a positive way impact the price our constituents pay for a gallon of
gasoline?
This impact is going to be felt all across the economy. Look at the
statistics on airlines. We are using actually less fuel on airlines
today, if we look at this green line, than we were going back even to
2000 and 2001. But look at the fuel costs of the airlines. They are
exploding. We have airlines facing bankruptcy, making service cutbacks,
not serving smaller communities, laying off employees because of high
fuel costs. There is no end in sight.
It is $4 today. What is to stop it from going to $5? If Ahmadinejad
and Chavez decide they want to get $200 for a barrel of oil, what is to
stop them, if we have no leverage? We need to be taking steps in the
United States that will increase our domestic supply of energy so we
don't have to rely upon those other countries for our energy supply. We
have those resources here. We have oil. We have biofuels. We need new
refineries. We can build new nuclear plants. All are being blocked.
Let's focus on what we can do to affect the fundamental rule of
supply and demand that will lead to lower energy costs, that will
increase the amount of energy we have relative to demand. That is how
we can impact in a positive way the price our constituents are paying
for a gallon of gasoline. Until we get serious about that, all this
other stuff done for optics because it is an election year and to gain
some political upper hand to go back to a constituency saying, we did
this or we are going to beat up the oil companies, raise taxes,
regulations and lawsuits and litigation, those sorts of things don't
solve the fundamental problem. We don't have enough domestic supply.
Until we address that fundamental problem, we will continue to be held
over a barrel and be at the mercy of these foreign countries telling us
what the price per barrel of oil and price per gallon of gasoline is
going to be.
I hope we can focus on that. We have some great solutions. My State
is a good example of what we have done with renewables. The Senator
from Iowa has a lot of great examples in his State of what we are doing
with renewable energy and wind. We have the resources to get this done.
It is high time we did it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from South
Dakota. He is expressing a very simple law that everybody learns in
economics 101: If you increase supply, it reduces price; if you
restrict supply, price goes up. What we want to do is increase the
supply of energy.
For myself, I want to explain earlier today my vote to invoke cloture
on the motion to proceed to S. 3044, the so-called Consumer-First
Energy Act or, another title, the antiprice-gouging bill. I want to
explain it because people might think that I am in support of
everything in the legislation. I will explain why I wasn't, but why I
thought we ought to move forward.
The legislation includes provisions that I have long supported,
including the no oil producing and exporting cartels legislation. I am
an original cosponsor of the NOPEC bill. This bill would authorize the
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to bring
lawsuits against oil cartel members for antitrust violation because it
is a fact of American law, if oil companies were doing the price fixing
that OPEC countries do, these executives would be in jail. Yet we are
faced with the same anticompetitive environment from other countries.
As our gas prices continue to rise, it is time to say enough is
enough to OPEC anticompetitive activities. It is past time to let OPEC
know that we are committed to stopping illegal pricing, the same
illegal pricing that would put CEOs of major oil companies in jail.
This legislation also includes provisions aimed at reducing
speculation in oil markets. I support that. I can't say for certain
whether the provisions included in the bill will have the desired
effect. I can say, however, that something needs to be done to address
what seems to be out-of-control speculation in crude oil markets, and
speculation of crude oil tends to show up on the business pages of the
newspaper as a major cause of the increase in oil and, in turn,
gasoline.
I am pleased that recently the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
has taken steps in recent days and weeks to increase their access to
data and information that will hopefully allow them the proper
oversight and transparency of energy markets. Take a little bit of
speculation, take a little bit of unknown out of the market, more
transparency ought to help our markets work better.
In conjunction with what the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is
up to and my wanting to build on what they are doing, I asked Acting
Chairman Lukken and Commissioner Chilten very pointed questions during
a recent confirmation hearing in the Agriculture Committee on the
CFTC's oversight responsibilities. In addition, I sent a letter to the
CFTC today seeking more information about the CFTC's action to rein in
speculation by investment banks and traders on foreign exchanges.
I voted today as I did in a manner uncustomary of Republicans to
proceed to the bill because I think we need to have a debate on the
critical issue of energy prices. However, that doesn't mean I support
everything in S. 3044. The bill, for instance, included a windfall
profits tax on oil companies. I saw firsthand a couple decades ago the
result of a windfall profits tax the last time it was enacted. It
didn't do anything to produce more energy. Simple economics: You tax
something, you get less of it. Why would those on the other side
believe if you tax energy production, you would get more energy
produced? Of course, it is counterintuitive. Yet this bill doesn't
include a single provision to increase the production or supply of
traditional energy resources. Why aren't we considering policies to
develop the resources that God gave us at home? We have a huge supply
of oil and gas in Alaska. We could be opening areas of the Outer
Continental Shelf to exploration. We could be looking at Federal lands
onshore for energy production. These are things we could do this very
day that
[[Page 11943]]
would increase supply and drive down prices. Yet they have been blocked
time after time by people on the other side.
If you think this is a partisan shot by a senior Republican, let me
suggest to you that I can show you rollcall after rollcall after
rollcall, not just recently but over a long period, of opposition from
the other side to increasing the supply of fossil fuels and the use of
fossil fuels we know. My constituents need to know why they are paying
$4 at the gas pump. Yet we in Washington have done little to increase
our own supplies.
Speaking from the grassroots of the State of Iowa, I want to remind
my colleagues of what I said last week on the floor of the Senate. Of
at least 14 out of the 17 town meetings I have had, the question came
up very simply: Why aren't we producing more oil? Why aren't we going
where the oil exists, with $4 gas? I can give a simple answer, and I
tell the people ahead of time in my town meetings. I try not to make
partisan comments, but occasionally I think I can when it is
intellectually honest to do it. I suggest to them that there is
opposition in the other party to more exploration, where we know there
is oil. We just don't have the votes to get the job done.
That could be considered a partisan shot, but I think I can back it
up with rollcalls. It is a justification to my constituents when I am
asked why we don't drill more where we know there is oil. Most of my
constituents expect you to do this in an environmentally sound way as
well. That doesn't, to me or my constituents, appear to be incompatible
because the United States is dependent upon oil cartels and foreign
countries such as Iran and Venezuela, very unstable, yet we have done
nothing to help ourselves. That is the way my constituents see it, as
evidenced by 14 out of 17 town meetings I held during the week of
Memorial Day. In the other three town meetings, it just did not happen
to come up.
I believe oil is trading today at around $135 a barrel. Yet there is
an overwhelming aversion to environmentally sound resources developed
at home. We ought to be developing our domestic resources. There is no
rational reason not to, and at $4-a-gallon gas, consumers ought to be
outraged they are not exploring for more domestic resources, and
Congress making decisions to do that, and to do it so quickly that it
is telling people why it is not being done. At the grassroots of
America, we ought to be having the same march on the Capitol as when
people are outraged about other things, which we do not seem to be
having this time.
Maybe we will have this outrage expressed. It is a little bit of a
quandary to me why, at the grassroots of America, when gas goes from
$3.50 to $4, or from $3 to $4, it does not seem we are having as much
outrage as we had when gasoline was going from $1.50 to $1.75 about 4
years ago. Maybe it is because people have lost confidence in Congress.
I do not know. I can understand why you can lose confidence in Congress
when you have $4 gasoline and we know where there is 13 billion barrels
of oil in this part of the country and 7 billion barrels of oil in
other areas of the country and we are importing 10 to 15 million
barrels of oil a day and paying out to some foreign country money that
if we drilled in the United States we would keep in the United States.
The bill I am explaining to you takes billions of dollars of
permanent tax provisions and dumps them into a special piggy bank
designed to let appropriators dole out special interests checks for
their favorite spending projects. I know the rhetoric you have heard
today is to make big oil pay to lower the price of gasoline. But I can
promise you, there is absolutely nothing in this bill that accomplishes
that charge. This bill, flawed as it is, would have to be amended. Any
permanent tax provisions on the backs of the energy industry should
immediately go back into tax benefits that expand conservation and
clean energy tax provisions currently in the Internal Revenue Code.
We cannot put the cart before the horse. It is irresponsible to
change taxes for future undisclosed spending. It is even more
irresponsible to do this before we make certain the current tax
benefits available for wind, solar, alternative fuels, and much needed
conservation in buildings and homes.
It was wrong for the Democratic leadership to dump permanent tax
provisions into a slush fund for future appropriations. But those types
of wrongs cannot be fixed if we never proceed to the bill, hence why
this Senator voted as I did today, contrary to what a lot of the
members of my party did.
House Extenders Bill
I turn now to the tax extenders bill. I voted today on the second
rollcall along with 43 other Senators against invoking cloture on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 6049, the House extenders bill.
Earlier today, the Democrat leadership released a description of a
substitute extenders bill that included many provisions that were not
extenders.
As you know, I joined Senator McConnell in filing an extenders bill
last Friday that is not offset by increases in taxes elsewhere because
it is our policy that if you extend existing tax policy, you should not
have to raise taxes on somebody else for an extension of tax policies
that in some instances have been in place for 20 years.
Here are some of the reasons, then, why I opposed the Democratic
leadership bill and support the Republican leadership bill.
The Senate Democratic leadership bill contains numerous provisions
that do not either extend or make permanent expiring tax provisions. On
the other hand, the Republican bill really is an extenders bill, with
all the provisions in the Senate bill extending or making permanent
expiring tax provisions.
Included in the Senate Democratic leadership bill is a proposal to
give $1.2 billion in tax credits to New York City, even though New York
City does not pay Federal tax. This proposal is widely reported to fund
the building of a train from Manhattan to John F. Kennedy Airport,
through the use of New York Liberty Zone tax credits.
According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congress has
never--and I want to emphasize ``never''--before provided a limited tax
benefit such as this to a governmental unit.
In addition, the bill provides a new $1.6 billion tax benefit just
for trial lawyers. Now, think about that. We are trying to extend tax
policy to bring economic development and create jobs, and it has
something in it for trial lawyers. It allows trial lawyers to deduct
their upfront expenses in contingency fee cases, even though they
expect to recover them when they win or settle the case. And these
trial lawyers do expect to win or settle their case; otherwise, they
would not take the case on a contingency fee basis.
So why should trial lawyers get a deduction for something they expect
to get back? We do not give lenders a current deduction when they make
a loan. Some would argue that this is a large chunk of pork that the
Democratic leadership bill is trying to feed to trial lawyers.
The Democratic leadership bill, for the first time in history, makes
tax benefits directly conditioned on the Davis-Bacon Act. That is the
prevailing wage requirement. It is added to a new provision called the
New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds.
The Senate Democratic leadership bill only extends provisions that
expire at the end of 2007 until the end of 2008, setting up another
extenders fire drill early next year. In contrast, our bill on the
Republican side generally extends provisions that expired at the end of
2007 until the end of 2009.
The Democratic leadership bill contains permanent tax provisions to
offset temporary extensions of current law. Anonymous Democratic
lobbyists are misstating the Republican position on offsetting expiring
tax relief provisions. The lobbyists have been quoted in the Roll Call
newspaper and other publications stating that part of the Republican
theology is opposition to offsets.
Republicans will support offsets if they make sense on the policy
merits. If the revenue-raising proposals make policy sense and offset
the revenue loss
[[Page 11944]]
for new tax policy--I want to emphasize ``new tax policy'' as opposed
to extending existing tax policy--then it will likely garner majority
support among Senate Republicans.
However, one of the revenue raisers in the Democratic leadership bill
is a proposal to delay the effective date of the worldwide interest
allocation rules. This provision was enacted in the American Jobs
Creation Act of 2004, with a delayed effective date for revenue
purposes.
The decision to reform the interest allocation rules was bipartisan
back then in 2004. The reform came out of the Finance Committee working
group set up by Chairman Baucus in 2002 and passed the full Senate by a
vote of 92 to 5. So after a vote of 92 to 5--bipartisan--why would they
try to undo a very important provision in it? The current rules
actually penalize domestic manufacturers who compete in global markets
by making it more likely they will be double taxed on their foreign
income.
The Senate Democratic leadership bill would delay the effective date
even further--can you believe it--by 9 years, giving it an effective
date of 2018. This provision raises almost $29 billion over 10 years.
The President of the United States, aware of how important this
provision is that is going to take effect in 2009--that was actually
passed in 2004 to make our manufacturing competitive with international
competition--issued a statement of administration policy noting that
``the Administration strongly opposes the provision in the bill that
would subject U.S. companies to continued double taxation by delaying
the effect of new rules for allocating worldwide interest for foreign
tax credit purposes.''
Let's look at the Senate Republican alternative. I hope people
listening know that a minority in the Senate has a responsibility to
have alternatives, not just jab at the majority position. So we have
this responsible alternative. It contains alternative minimum tax
relief and extensions of individual and business tax provisions, but
with no offsets, following the philosophy we have that if you have had
tax policy in place for decades that tends to sunset from time to
time--it has been on the books--you should not have to raise taxes on
new people to extend it for a few more years. So there are no offsets
for the continuation of existing tax policy.
It also includes the Ensign-Cantwell energy tax incentives, an
unoffset provision which was approved by the Senate by a vote of 88 to
8. This means an overwhelming majority of this body were willing to
pass energy extenders without requiring offsets.
So why, if we have a vote of 88 to 8 to extend energy tax credits for
a few years, and we do not have to offset it--how does the other side
get the idea that if you had other tax policies that maybe have been on
the books for decades and sunset, you have to have offsets for that? I
do not understand the inconsistency.
The bottom line is, we need a package that can garner 60 votes in the
Senate and get a signature by the President of the United States. So
Senate Republicans will seek to proceed to the Senate Republican
leadership bill which contains a package of proposals that have
bipartisan agreement.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and since I do not see other
Members ready to speak, 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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, this morning we had two more opportunities
to address rising gas prices and do something immediately as the price
of gas per gallon goes over $4 in Steubenville and almost $4 in Dayton
and even higher in some places in my State and in the Presiding
Officer's State of New Jersey. We had two more opportunities to address
rising gas prices immediately and longer term.
We need to start immediately to invest in renewable energy rather
than the other choice of continuing to line the pockets of big oil. We
could have helped to begin to create tens of thousands of good-paying,
green-collar jobs right here at home. Once again, the Bush
administration opposed our efforts and Republican Senators joined the
Bush administration and refused to put middle-class families first.
The Consumer-First Energy Act is a good first step in providing
immediate relief to drivers in Ohio and across the land who are faced
with soaring gasoline and diesel prices.
The other night I had a conference call with 20 truckers. Think about
what this has done to them. Many of them have had to sell their trucks.
They are simply not able to afford the $4.50 and up per gallon price of
diesel. Oil prices are setting record highs, it seems, every week, and
yesterday closed at over $136 a barrel.
This legislation will help in the short term and allow us to get
through and offer some assistance to motorists to get through the
summer driving season. The policies that created this gas price crisis
didn't happen overnight. Before we attack the long-term problems,
Ohioans need help now to get through the summer to keep trucks running,
to keep the economy moving, to keep food prices in check as the cost of
energy ripples through the whole economy and causes prices to go up
generally.
Cities throughout Ohio are struggling to pay gas bills for the police
cars, for EMS, for fire department vehicles, school buses, garbage
trucks, and mass transit services.
We need to roll back the massive tax breaks for oil companies which
would generate more than $17 billion to be used for green energy, for
renewable energy, and for energy efficiency. We will impose a 25-
percent windfall profits tax on companies that fail to invest in
increased capacity and renewable energy sources. We will ensure
purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve do not resume, especially
when we are paying $120, $130, $140, $150 a barrel to put oil in the
reserve. We will provide protection for consumers from price gouging.
We call on the Justice Department again to be active and take on the
oil companies as they seem to price gouge. We will work to stop market
speculation, prevent traders of U.S. crude oil from routing
transmissions through offshore markets to evade speculative limits.
Ohioans play by the rules. Americans play by the rules. So should the
oil industry. So should the speculator. So should Wall Street.
There is so much we need to do. I call on my friends on that side of
the aisle to join with majority Democrats: no more filibusters and
let's get to work. Let's do the right thing short term to help American
motorists deal with these outrageously high prices, long term to, in
fact, after 30 years become energy independent and create the kinds of
green jobs a good energy policy can create.
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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
NATIONAL HUNGER AWARENESS DAY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today in honor of National Hunger
Awareness Day. On this day, we focus on the more than 35 million people
in the United States without enough to eat and reassert our commitment
to assist those in need.
[[Page 11945]]
Millions of families live each day not knowing if they will have
enough to eat. Rather than thinking about what the next meal will be,
these parents worry if there will be a next meal. Rather than
concentrate on homework, these children are trying not to think about
their hunger pangs. In a nation as economically wealthy and
agriculturally abundant as ours, this is inexcusable. If children--or
adults--are hungry in America, that is a problem for all of us.
This administration has seen the number of people living in poverty
rise from 31.6 million in 2000 to 36.5 million in 2006. The number of
people living in households facing food insecurity rose from 31 million
in 1999 to 35.5 million in 2006. In Illinois, over 158,000 households
experienced hunger in 2005. If we include households that have had to
struggle to put food on the table or have had to skip meals to make
sure the food would last through the week, it adds up to 500,000
households in Illinois living with food insecurity. These are working
families who just aren't able to make ends meet.
At a time when millions of middle class Americans are struggling to
keep up with higher gas prices, grocery bills, and health care costs,
more and more families are looking to Federal programs for assistance.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, applications for food
stamps are on the rise at the same time recipients are making more
frequent use of food pantries to fill gaps in their grocery needs. Over
26 million people nationwide are dependent on the Federal Food Stamp
Program. In April, 594,590 families in Illinois received food stamps,
an increase of 5.84 percent from last year and the highest level ever
in Illinois, equating to 1.3 million people. And since December,
participation in the Women, Infants and Children, or WIC, food
assistance program has increased 4 percent to a total of 296,000. But
for the millions of people who don't have assistance, everything is
different.
We know hunger is a reality in our communities. We see long lines at
our food pantries. We have heard from seniors forced to choose between
groceries and medication. And children are in our schools who have not
had a decent meal since the previous day's school lunch. We see
families showing up a day earlier than normal at the food pantry
because the monthly pay is not stretching as far it once did. Parents
are giving up their own meal to make sure their child has something to
eat at night.
In the Nation that prides itself as the land of plenty, we cannot
hide the fact that we need to do a better job at making sure everybody
has at least enough to eat. The passage of this year's farm bill is a
strong first step toward better addressing hunger in our country. The
farm bill provides 10 billion additional dollars over 10 years for
domestic nutrition programs that help lower income families put food on
the table, including $7.8 billion for the Food Stamp Program, $1.25
billion for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and $1 billion for
the fresh fruits and vegetables snack program. In Illinois, over the
next 10 years, this bill will provide $373 million in additional
funding to help families that haven't been able to outrun hunger.
But with one hungry person in our Nation, hunger will be a problem
for all of us. I hope that we will continue to work together to fulfill
our duty to end hunger in our Nation and the world.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to my colleagues'
attention the fact that today, June 10, 2008, is National Hunger
Awareness Day.
As a founder of the bipartisan Senate Hunger caucus and an original
cosponsor of the legislation establishing this commemoration, I believe
hunger is an issue that deserves our full attention.
For the past 4 years, my fellow caucus cochairs Senator Smith,
Senator Dole, as well as Senator Durbin and I have executed a food
drive in our Senate offices with donations helping those in need in the
Washington area. The collection began last month and culminates today
National Hunger Awareness Day when we donate the collected goods to
needy organizations.
I have worked with my Senate colleagues to draw attention to this
issue because hunger and poverty are not just global issues they are so
pervasive that we all have some experience with them in our local
communities.
Worldwide, 3 billion people--nearly half the world's population--live
on merely $2 per day. In our Nation alone, almost 35.5 million
Americans struggle day in and day out to find adequate nutritious food.
More than 13 million children live in households that are food
insecure.
According to the Arkansas Hunger Relief Alliance in my home State,
approximately 80 percent of supplemental nutrition assistance goes to
households with children, many of them in working families, including
military families. Older Americans and those with disabilities also
depend on these benefits. Every month, nutrition assistance programs
enable almost 385,000 Arkansans 13.7 percent of my State's population
to purchase groceries for themselves and their families.
As a member of the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Committee, I worked to address this issue in the recently passed Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and I am proud the bill aims to
reduce food insecurity among our children and our elderly, and others
in need. This bill commits $10.36 billion to continue the fight against
hunger. It represents the largest amount of funding for nutrition
programs in our Nation's history. One billion dollars is allocated to
the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, which provides free fresh fruits
and vegetables to low-income children in schools nationwide. It also
expands the senior farmers' market program by $50 million to help them
purchase fresh food at places like farmers' markets and roadside stands
throughout the country.
In the coming weeks and months, I encourage my colleagues to become
more aware, more educated, and more informed about the effects of
hunger and poverty and to find out what impact you can have in your
State and in your community. Government cannot do it alone, though.
It has been said: To those to whom much is given, much is required.
We must continue to work together to devote our time and resources to
organizations in our communities committed to this cause and develop
public/private partnerships to combat food insecurity in this country.
Hunger is a disease that has a cure. It is our responsibility to strive
hard each and every day to eliminate hunger in our country and around
the world.
____________________
SOMALIA
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, on May 21, 2008, the Senate passed by
unanimous consent S. Res. 541, a resolution on Somalia introduced by
Senator Feingold. As the new ranking member of the Senate Foreign
Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs, I wholeheartedly support
bringing about change in Somalia to allow for a viable government that
will benefit the people of Somalia as well as the entire region.
The United States has a critical interest in establishing a secure
and stable government and society in Somalia. I support the U.S.
strategy in Somalia and believe that the only way to stabilize the
country is through political reform, humanitarian assistance,
deployment of African Union forces, and to keep terrorists from seeking
refuge in Somalia. It is important that the Senate recognize that it is
in the interest of the United States, as well as the entire region,
that the sustainable peace in Somalia we seek create a government that
does not threaten or seek to destabilize its neighbors or provide safe
haven to known terrorists that are a threat to the U.S. and the Horn of
Africa.
I also wish to emphasize that it is equally important that the Senate
take great care in calling for a timeline for the withdrawal of
Ethiopia's troops from Somalia. The resolution calls on Ethiopia to
develop a timeline for the ``responsible'' withdrawal of its armed
forces from Somalia. I believe Ethiopia to be in full agreement with
this language and would like to withdraw its forces as
[[Page 11946]]
soon as possible; however, a ``responsible withdrawal'' requires a
replacement to maintain peace and stability and to stop terrorism. I
would urge the African Union to continue sending peacekeeping forces to
Somalia so that the Ethiopian forces can withdraw.
Furthermore, I strongly support all efforts that help convince
Eritrea to play a constructive role in helping to bring about a stable
Somalia. I urge the African Union, the United Nations and other
peacekeeping groups in the region to pressure Eritrea to work with its
regional partners to bring about peace and stability in Somalia.
____________________
CLIMATE SECURITY ACT
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to respond to a statement that
Senator Pryor made on Friday, June 6. On that day, Senator Pryor rose
to express his support for the basic approach that the Lieberman-Warner
Climate Security Act takes to reducing emissions of certain greenhouse
gases called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. Senator Pryor praised our
decision, in crafting the Climate Security Act, to subject HFCs to a
separate cap-and-trade system rather than including them under the same
cap with less potent greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. He
expressed his hope that the initial level and reduction rate of the HFC
cap could be revised before the bill becomes law. I welcome Senator
Pryor's focus on the Climate Security Act's HFC provisions, and I would
like to work with him on that portion of the bill as it moves through
the legislative process. I remain interested in increasing the
specificity of those provisions while simultaneously expanding the area
of consensus among manufacturers of HFCs, distributors of HFCs,
manufacturers of equipment that uses HFCs, and the environmental
community.
____________________
REMEMBERING CONGRESSMAN LIONEL VAN DEERLIN
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am honored to remember former Member of
the House of Representatives Lionel Van Deerlin, who passed away on May
18, 2008, at the age of 93.
Lionel Van Deerlin, affectionately known as ``Van,'' served in
Congress for over 18 years, representing San Diego. His legislative
legacy includes a key role in revising the Federal laws to permit
California to set tougher emission standards than the rest of the
Nation. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Communications, he
actively worked to update the 1934 Federal Communications Act in order
to keep up with changing technologies. A leader in ethics, he was among
the first congressional leaders to voluntarily disclose his personal
finances.
Lionel was born in Los Angeles, CA, on July 25, 1914, and grew up in
north San Diego County. He attended the University of Southern
California, where he was editor of the Daily Trojan, and graduated in
1937. After graduation, he worked in journalism until World War II.
Lionel honorably served our Nation in the U.S. Army, returning to
journalism and San Diego after the war.
A gentleman, a statesman, and a friend to all, Van earned the respect
of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He tirelessly worked on
behalf of the people of San Diego. His legacy is substantial in San
Diego--he helped to establish the Naval Medical Center San Diego as
well as a Veterans' Administration hospital. Lionel's spirit continues
in the generations of leaders he mentored and counseled.
After leaving Congress in 1981, Van returned to journalism as a
political columnist, first for the San Diego Tribune and later for the
Union-Tribune. His columns, which were eagerly read by San Diegans
regardless of political party, were remarkable for the clarity and
common sense they brought to the political process. As a writer, his
chief targets were hypocrisy and vested interests, while his chief
passions were American participatory democracy and the San Diego region
he knew and served so well.
Van is survived by three daughters: Mary Susan, Victoria, and
Elizabeth Louise; two sons: Jeff and John; and four grandchildren.
Our country has lost a remarkable public servant and tutor with the
passing of Lionel Van Deerlin. His contributions to the people of San
Diego, the State of California, and our Nation should be remembered.
____________________
LITIGATION COST DEDUCTIONS
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on March 8, 2007, I introduced S. 814.
The bill has nine cosponsors: Senators Graham, Smith, Crapo, Martinez,
Landrieu, Wyden, Leahy, Salazar, and Stabenow. It was included in the
energy/business tax extenders package, on which a vote on the motion to
proceed failed today.
S. 814, would allow attorneys to deduct reimbursable court costs and
expenses--expert witness fees, copying and transcription costs, travel
expenses--in the same tax period in which they are paid or incurred.
For attorneys paid on a contingency fee basis, the Internal Revenue
Service treats these expenditures as ``loans'' that may be repaid from
any award or settlement at the end of the case. For this reason,
currently most attorneys may take a deduction only in the same period
he recognizes the income from the award--which may be years after the
attorney has paid the expense/cost. This is a burden on, and often
unfair to, solo practitioners and attorneys in small firms who may have
to assume costly loans because they do not have the resources to carry
these expenses for multiple years.
In addition, the tax treatment of these expenses is not uniform in
all jurisdictions--as some courts have disagreed with the IRS on the
current treatment. This is another reason the current rule is unfair
and should be changed. Finally, I note that the IRS interpretation is
based on State legal ethics rules about advances to clients that have
since been changed.
I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed even though I
obviously support S. 814, and although I also support the tax extenders
that expired at the end of 2007--including the R&D tax credit, teacher
expenses deduction, tuition deduction, and accelerated depreciation for
leasehold and restaurant improvements. I also support some tax
extenders that are set to expire at the end of 2008 --including
renewable energy tax incentives.
The main sticking point between Democrats and Republicans is whether
temporary extensions of tax relief should be offset with permanent tax
increases elsewhere. On April 23, 2008, I, along with 40 other
Republicans, wrote to Finance Chairman Baucus to support ``enacting a
2008 AMT patch and extending the various expiring tax provision without
offsetting tax increases.''
The vote was a demonstration by Republicans that they have numbers
and that they need to be included in the process of drafting the bill.
Republican leadership had no expectation that any Republican amendments
would be allowed because of Leader Reid's standard operating procedure
of filling the tree and filing cloture.
I am told that the leadership on both sides and the chairman and
ranking member of Finance will now sit down to discuss the next steps.
I think this is a positive development and I will encourage the
inclusion in a bipartisan bill of the proposed amendment to the
Internal Revenue Code that is embodied in S. 814.
____________________
REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleagues
that I have requested to be notified of any unanimous consent agreement
before the Senate proceeds to the consideration of any legislation that
amends the Immigration and Nationality Act. I intend to reserve my
right to object to any such request unless legislation to reauthorize
the E-verify program run by the Department of Homeland Security is
included.
Last week, I introduced legislation to permanently extend the
employment verification program, which was created in 1996. This
program has been a valuable asset for more than 69,000 employers across
the country that want
[[Page 11947]]
to comply with our immigration laws. This program needs to be
reauthorized this year. For that reason, I have asked the minority
leader to consult me before any unanimous consent agreement on
immigration legislation is considered.
____________________
COLLAPSE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record ``Letters from Vermont and America.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Collapse of the Middle Class
Letters from Vermont and America
Dear Friend, As gas and oil prices soared and as the nation
slipped into recession, I made a request to Vermonters on my
e-mail list. I asked them to tell me what was going on in
their lives economically. That was it. Frankly, I expected a
few dozen replies. I was amazed, therefore, when my office
received over 600 responses from all across the State, as
well as some from other states. This small booklet contains a
few of those letters.
It is one thing to read dry economic statistics which
describe the collapse of the American middle class. It is
another thing to understand, in flesh and blood terms, what
that means in the lives of ordinary Americans. Yes, since
George W. Bush has been in office 5 million Americans have
slipped into poverty, 8 million have lost their health
insurance and 3 million have lost their pensions. Yes, in the
last 7 years median household income for working-age
Americans has declined by $2,500. Yes, our country, for the
first time since the Great Depression, now has a zero
personal savings rate and, all across the Nation, emergency
food shelves are being flooded with working families whose
inadequate wages prevent them from feeding their families.
Statistics are one thing, however, and real life is
another. The responses that I received describe the decline
of the American middle class from the perspective of those
people who are living that decline. They speak about families
who, not long ago, thought they were economically secure, but
now find themselves sinking into desperation and
hopelessness.
These e-mails tell the stories of working families unable
to keep their homes warm in the winter; workers worried about
whether they'll be able to fill their gas tank to get to
their jobs; and seniors, who spent their entire lives
working, now wondering how they'll survive in old age. They
describe the pain and disappointments that parents feel as
they are unable to save money for their kids' college
education, and the dread of people who live without health
insurance.
In order to try and break through the complacency and
isolation inside the Washington Beltway, I have read some of
these stories on the floor of the Senate. It is imperative
that Congress and the corporate media understand the painful
reality facing the middle class today so that we can develop
the appropriate public policy to address this crisis. We must
expand low income home heating assistance, stop oil
profiteering and price gouging, and support programs that
address the growing crisis of hunger in America. The National
Priorities Act (S. 818) that I introduced in this session of
Congress is one example of legislation that would address the
growing crisis.
Let me conclude by thanking all of those people who have so
kindly shared their lives with me through these letters. I
know that for many of you this was not an easy thing to do.
Bernie Sanders,
United States Senator.
____
Here are letters from two mothers in Vermont. The first is
from a woman in rural area; the second is a single mother in
a small city.
We have at times had to choose between baby food and heating
fuel.
My husband and I have lived in Vermont our whole lives. We
have two small children (a baby and a toddler) and felt
fortunate to own our own house and land but due to the
increasing fuel prices we have at times had to choose between
baby food/diapers and heating fuel. We've run out of heating
fuel three times so far and the baby has ended up in the
hospital with pneumonia two of the times. We try to keep the
kids warm with an electric space heater on those nights, but
that just doesn't do the trick.
My husband does what he can just to scrape enough money for
car fuel each week and we've gone from three vehicles to one
just to try and get by without going further into debt. We
were going to sell the house and rent, but the rent around
here is higher than what we pay for our monthly mortgage and
property taxes combined. Please help.
By February we ran out of wood and I burned my mother's
dining room furniture.
I am a single mother with a 9 year old boy. We lived this
past winter without any heat at all. Fortunately someone gave
me an old wood stove. I had to hook it up to an old/unused
chimney we had in the kitchen. I couldn't even afford a
chimney liner (the price of liners went up with the price of
fuel). To stay warm at night my son and I would pull off all
the pillows from the couch and pile them on the kitchen
floor. I'd hang a blanket from the kitchen doorway and we'd
sleep right there on the floor. By February we ran out of
wood and I burned my mother's dining room furniture. I have
no oil for hot water. We boil our water on the stove and pour
it in the tub. I'd like to order one of your flags and hang
it upside down at the capital building...we are certainly a
country in distress.
These two letters describe the pressures faced by
Vermonters on family life.
Not spending those 10 hours at home with my husband and son
makes a big difference for all of us . . .
As a couple with one child, earning about $55,000/year, we
have been able to eat out a bit, buy groceries and health
insurance, contribute to our retirement funds and live a
relatively comfortable life financially. We've never
accumulated a lot of savings, but our bills were always paid
on time and we never had any interest on our credit card.
Over the last year, even though we've tightened our belts
(not eating out much, watching purchases at the grocery
store, not buying ``extras'' like a new TV, repairing the
washer instead of buying a new one...), and we find ourselves
with over $7,000 of credit card debt and trying to figure out
how to pay for braces for our son.
I work 50 hours per week to help earn extra money to catch
up, but that also takes a toll on the family life--not
spending those 10 hours at home with my husband and son makes
a big difference for all of us. My husband hasn't had a raise
in 3 years, and his employer is looking to cut out any extra
benefits they can to lower their expenses, which will
increase ours.
I want to drop everything I am doing and go visit him.
My 90-year-old father in Connecticut has recently become
ill and asked me to visit him. I want to drop everything I am
doing and go visit him, however, I am finding it hard to save
enough money to add to the extra gas I'll need to get there.
I am self-employed, with my own commercial cleaning service
and money is tight, not only with gas prices, but with
everything. I make more than I did a year ago and I don't
have enough to pay my property taxes this quarter for the
first time in many years. They are due tomorrow.
These letters speak of retirement. One is from an older
Vermont couple who recently stopped working; the second is
from a woman in a small town in Vermont who is thinking about
the future she and her husband face.
We also only eat two meals a day to conserve.
My husband and I are retired and 65. We would have liked to
have worked longer but because of injuries caused at work and
the closing of our factory to go to Canada, we chose to
retire earlier.
Now with oil prices the way they are we cannot afford to
heat our home unless my husband cuts and splits wood, which
is a real hardship as he has had his back fused and should
not be working most of the day to keep up with the wood. Not
only that he has to get up two or three times each night to
keep the fire going.
We also have a 2003 car that we only get to drive to get
groceries or go to the doctor or to visit my mother in the
nursing home three miles away. It now costs us $80.00 a month
to go nowhere. We have 42,000 miles on a 5 year old car.
I have Medicare but I can't afford prescription coverage
unless I take my money out of an annuity, which is supposed
to cover the house payment when my husband's pension is gone.
We also only eat two meals a day to conserve.
My husband and I are very nervous about what will happen to
us when we are old.
Yesterday I paid for our latest home heating fuel delivery:
$1,100. I also paid my $2,000+ credit-card balance, much of
which bought gas and groceries for the month.
My husband and I are very nervous about what will happen to
us when we are old. Although we have three jobs between us
and participate in 403B retirement plans, we have not saved
enough for a realistic post-work life if we survive to our
life expectancy. As we approach the traditional retirement
age, we are slowly paying off our daughter's college tuition
loan and trying to keep our heads above water.
We have always lived frugally. We buy used cars and store
brand groceries, recycle everything, walk or carpool when
possible and plastic our windows each fall. Even so, if/when
our son decides to attend college, we will be in deep debt at
age 65.
P.S. Please don't use my name. I live in a small town, and
this is so embarrassing.
These letters speak about the emotional consequences of the
current economic situation and are from a man who lives in a
small town near the New Hampshire border, and from a woman
who lives in central Vermont.
[[Page 11948]]
The pennies have all but dried up . . . Today I am sad,
broken, and very discouraged.
I, too, have been struggling to overcome the increasing
costs of gas, heating oil, food, taxes, etc. I have to say
that this is the toughest year, financially, that I have ever
experienced in my 41 years on this earth. I have what used to
be considered a decent job, I work hard, pinch my pennies,
but the pennies have all but dried up. I am thankful that my
employer understands that many of us cannot afford to drive
to work 5 days a week. Instead, I work three 15-hour days. I
have taken odd jobs to try to make ends meet.
This winter, after keeping the heat just high enough to
keep my pipes from bursting (the bedrooms are not heated and
never got above 30 degrees) I began selling off my
woodworking tools, snowblower, (pennies on the dollar) and
furniture that had been handed down in my family from the
early 1800s, just to keep the heat on.
Today I am sad, broken, and very discouraged. I am thankful
that the winter cold is behind us for a while, but now gas
prices are rising yet again. I just can't keep up.
I don't go to church many Sundays, because the gasoline is
too expensive to drive there.
As a single parent, I am struggling everyday to put food on
the table. Our clothes all come from thrift stores. I have a
5-year-old car that needs work. My son is gifted and
talented. I tried to sell my house to enroll him in a school
that had curriculum available for his special needs. After 2
years on the market, my house never sold. The property taxes
have nearly doubled in 10 years and the oil to heat it is
prohibitive. To meet the needs of my son, I have left the
house sit and moved into an apartment near his high school. I
don't go to church many Sundays, because the gasoline is too
expensive to drive there. Every thought of an activity is
dependent on the cost. I can only purchase food from dented
can stores . . . I am stretched to the breaking point with no
help in sight.
More descriptions of what it feels like to be caught in the
American economy of the early years of the 21st century.
These letters are from a man in north central Vermont and
from a man in rural Pennsylvania.
At the rate we are going we will be destitute in just a few
years.
Due to illness my ability to work has been severely
limited. I am making $10 an hour and if I am lucky I get 35
hours a week of work. At this time I am only getting 20 hours
as it is ``off season'' in Stowe. It does not take a
mathematician to do the figures. How are my wife and I
supposed to live on a monthly take-home income of less than
$800? We do it by spending our hard earned retirement
savings. I am 50 and my wife is 49. At the rate we are going
we will be destitute in just a few years. The situation is so
dire that it is all I can think about.
Soon I will have to start walking to work, an 8-mile round
trip because the price of energy is so high it is that or go
without heat.
As bad as our situation is, I know many in worse shape. We
try to donate food when we do our weekly shopping but now we
are not able to even afford to help our neighbors eat. What
has this country come to?
I am just tired . . . I work 12 to 14 hours daily and it just
doesn't help.
I am 55 years old and worse off than my adult children. I
have worked since age 16. I don't live from paycheck to
paycheck, I live day to day. I can only afford to fill my gas
tank on my payday thereafter, I put $5, $10 whatever that I
can. I cannot afford to buy the food items that I would. I am
riding around daily to and from work with a quarter of a tank
of gas. This is very scary as I can see myself working until
the day that I die. I do not have a savings, no credit cards
and my only resources are thru my employment. I have to drive
to work as there are no buses from my residence to work. I
don't know how much longer I can do this. . . . I am
concerned as gas prices climb daily. I am just tired, the
harder that I work the harder it gets, I work 12 to 14 hours
daily and it just doesn't help.
Two women, the first from the Northeast Kingdom of Vermont,
the second from a small city in Vermont, write about their
situation and their fears.
Now we find that instead of a feeling of comfort, we have a
feeling of dread.
I live in the beautiful Northeast Kingdom. There are only a
handful of decent jobs available, and the wages everywhere
else are not very good. My husband and I have done what we
had to in order to survive and to make a decent life for our
two children, aged 7 and 4. He has worked steadily at a local
plant for 15 years, and I have worked part-time in order to
pay the bills without having to rely on daycare. We live a
modest life and do not live beyond our means. We have no
flat-screen TV, no cell phones, no iPods, and have only one
vehicle payment. We thought that finally, maybe, we would be
able to get ahead.
Now we find that instead of a feeling of comfort, we have a
feeling of dread. It seems like every time we do the right
thing and try to move ahead for our family, something out of
our control happens in order to slap us back down. I have
always been a big pusher of ``if you can do something to
change your situation, do it.'' Now, even though we are doing
everything right, my husband and I find ourselves extremely
worried about this winter. I have no answers as to how to
make the oil prices lower.
My husband and I have tried, again, to do the right things
by limiting our driving and by setting the heat at 68 degrees
all winter. We even had our home made as energy efficient as
possible, yet we now find ourselves unsure if we will be able
to pay for both the mortgage and our oil next winter.
Some nights we eat cereal and toast for dinner because that's
all I have.
I am a working mother of two young children. I currently
pay on average around $80.00 a week for gas so that I can go
to work. I see the effects of the gas increase at the grocery
stores and at the department stores. On average I spend
around $150.00 per week at the grocery store and trust me
when I say I don't buy prime rib--I buy just enough to get us
through the week and I can't afford to make sure we have
seven wholesome meals to eat every night of the week--some
nights we eat cereal and toast for dinner because that's all
I have. My family has had to cancel our annual trip to the
zoo, and we make less trips to see our families in another
town due to the increase of gas. The price of gas has created
a hardship for most average Americans. We have less money to
pay to living expenses which have also increased. It seems as
if it's just a rippling effect. I am really scared of what
the future holds for me and my kids because I just simply
cannot afford to live from day to day. I am getting further
and further in credit card debt just trying to stay afloat.
Some letters are from people who work in health care and
report on what is happening in their towns. The first of
these is from a small town in north-central Vermont; the
second is from a small town in the state of Washington.
Insurance costs continue to rise causing some to forgo
insurance to pay for gasoline, heating fuel and
groceries.
As the chief of a small ambulance service, I have seen the
impact of rising costs.
As a service made up of primarily volunteers, we have seen
our numbers decline. When soliciting for volunteers from the
community, we have been told that they are unable to put the
time in due to the need to work more just to pay their bills.
Our costs associated with running an ambulance have also
risen in the last few years. When discussing with our
suppliers, fuel prices play a large part in the increase--
both to manufacture and to transport.
We are hearing from more and more Vermonters that insurance
costs continue to rise causing some to forgo insurance to pay
for gasoline, heating fuel and groceries.
In speaking with other ambulance services both volunteer
and paid, most including ours, are delaying purchases on
major equipment such as ambulance replacements, due to
limited funding. This means we have older equipment, and
higher maintenance costs.
Dentistry is expensive and people are opting not to come to
the dentist.
I live in Washington. I drive about 10 miles to work every
day. I drive an eight-year-old car that gets about 25 miles
per gallon. My husband is a contractor and drives a small
pickup truck that gets very poor mileage. Together I have
estimated that we spend about $300 a month on gas. This has a
tremendous effect on our budget. We are watching every penny
we spend.
I work in a dental clinic that is also seeing a slowdown.
Dentistry is expensive and people are opting not to come to
the dentist or not getting the optimal dentistry they need. I
spoke to the medical doctor across the hall from our office.
He was telling us that they too have seen a slowdown in their
practice. People are forgoing a trip to the doctor to save
money. One of my patients told me a story yesterday about a
food bank in town that is finding it difficult to keep its
shelves full. They had a realtor who was a regular
contributor. Now she was coming to get food for herself. The
cost of food is rising at a tremendous rate.
Rising gas prices have an effect on medical care as well,
as this letter from an oncology social worker in a Vermont
city reveals.
I cannot describe how devastating it has been for these folks
who need to travel great distances to get to/from their
cancer treatment.
My story involves my capacity as an oncology social worker
working with cancer patients in an outpatient clinic. I also
run an emergency fund through the Cancer Patient Support
Program which provides funds to cancer patients in need
during their cancer journey, including initial diagnosis,
surgery, and treatment period in which they experience a
significant decrease in income during a medical leave.
I cannot describe how devastating it has been for these
folks who need to travel great distances to get to/from their
cancer treatment and followup care with the way gas prices
have been!
Many of these folks need to travel on a daily basis to
radiation therapy for several weeks while others come from
surrounding counties every one to two weeks for chemotherapy.
It [the high price of gas] has had a tremendous impact on our
ability to provide the financial assistance through our
emergency fund to all those in need.
[[Page 11949]]
Someone with cancer who has to get treatment has no choice
in how many times they need to travel great distances. They
have to have reliable transportation, and thus need access to
gas for their cars, or another family member's car, to get to
their treatment and followup care.
This is becoming increasingly difficult as gas prices
continue to rise and our emergency fund cannot meet all the
financial needs of these patients.
This is the story of a woman who lives in a suburban
community near Burlington, Vermont. Following it is a short
letter from a senior citizen in a very small town in the
mountains of central Vermont.
I feel as though I am between a rock and a hard place no
matter how hard I try to adjust my budget for the month.
First of all, I am a single mother of a 16 year old
daughter. I own a condominium. I have worked at the hospital
for 16 years and make a very good salary, in the high $40,000
range.
I own a 2005 Honda Civic. I filled up my gas tank
yesterday, April 1, and it cost me almost $43. That was at
$3.22 per gallon. If prices stay at that level, it will cost
me $160 per month to fill up my gas tank. A year ago it cost
me under $20 to fill up my tank. Which would have amounted to
approximately $80 per month. I now have to decide what
errands I really need to run and what things I can do over
the phone or on the Internet. But the other issue is if I use
my cell phone too much during the month my bill will increase
and that will cost me more money.
I feel as though I am between a rock and a hard place no
matter how hard I try to adjust my budget for the month. I am
watching my purchases in the grocery store and department
stores more closely because of increased prices. I am not
sure that I can afford to take a summer vacation this year. I
usually take a day off during my daughter's spring vacation
so we can go shopping in New Hampshire somewhere. I have
already cancelled those plans for this year. I am hoping that
I can take a few days off this summer to go to Maine. We will
see how the gas prices are this summer but I hear it is going
to get worse. Not much hope for someone on a tight budget.
I have been forced to go back to work.
I am a 71 year old man and have been retired since 2000.
With the price of fuel oil I have been forced to go back to
work just to heat my home and pay my property taxes.
These two women who live in small towns in central Vermont
write about their sense that their families are sinking,
economically.
We would like to not have to worry about where our next meal
will come from.
I am a registered school nurse in Vermont, and my husband
is a self-employed bread baker. We are in our mid 30's and
have two young children. We always thought that if we went to
college, earned 4-year degrees, and worked hard, that we
would be able to live a decent life. We have no desire to be
wealthy, but would like to not have to worry about where our
next meal will come from.
As you know, wheat prices are soaring. Over the last year,
he has seen his price per 50-pound bag of flour increase
about $10 or more (last week alone, price per bag went up
$2.75). We are feeling distraught that we may never ``get
ahead'' but will always be pedaling to just keep up . . .
Employed in Vermont since 1997, I will be paying back my
nursing loans for a long time--longer now that we just can't
keep up with the rising costs of oil and wheat.
My husband and I both work very, very hard to provide
needed services to our Vermont communities. Yet we scratch
our heads when trying to budget our income. How can it be
that two college-educated individuals with respectable
careers are in such a financial bind?
My husband and I followed all the rules . . . Slowly, though,
we have sunk back to the `poor' days.
My husband and I followed all the rules. He grew up in
urban projects and went into the military with Vietnam
service so he could get GI Bill benefits and go to college. I
grew up picking strawberries as a migrant worker, but had a
mother who so pressed education that I was able to go to
college on scholarship and by working full time nights in a
mental hospital. My husband and I worked hard to buy a home,
maintain good credit, even taking government jobs because we
truly wanted to help others. I became disabled and unable to
work, but we managed to live a middle-class life on one
salary.
Slowly, though, we have sunk back to the `poor' days. Our
heating oil bill, gas prices, food prices--well, you know the
story. Even a pizza is a splurge now. The interest on our
meager savings doesn't seem worth keeping the money in the
bank. We're so much more fortunate than many others, since we
can still meet our bills, but we're scared that we'll drop
beneath that level soon. It doesn't seem right that after
working hard and following all the rules for our lives, now,
at 60, we're tumbling down.
These two letters, one from a man in a Chicago suburb, and
one from a teacher in Vermont's Connecticut River Valley,
also speak of the sense of falling behind in the 21st century
American economy.
It costs me so much money in gas that my wife and I live on
$6 per day to eat.
My job was transferred to China 8 years ago. No jobs were
available in my field. I tried to do everything I possibly
could do in finding another job outside of my field but
failed. My unemployment ran out. I lost everything: House,
cars and the will to live. My wife and I moved into my in-
law's basement after this catastrophe. I regained my never-
give-up outlook on life. I went back to school. I spent
$13,000 on my education to become a residential home
inspector. That market is in turmoil, and I can't make any
money in it these days. I am still self-employed now
performing various inspections on the commercial side within
the northern half of Illinois. I drive on average 250 miles
per day. It costs me so much money in gas that my wife and I
live on $6 per day to eat. I can't afford health insurance
for my wife and I because that money is in the gas tank every
week. The irony of it is my wife is a nurse. She's expecting
the doctor she works with to close his office any day now
because he's behind in his malpractice insurance. His
premiums are too high and he's 120 days past due on his
office lease payments because he's trying to keep the
malpractice insurance in effect. He stopped offering health
insurance to his employees 2 years ago with his increasing
costs. I still live in a basement. Do you need any more
evidence that our country and our leaders have failed me?
How much more of a hit can people take? The future looks
extremely bleak to me.
Bernie, I am so frightened for next year, as I struggle
daily this year. I drive past the gas stations and see the
price go up. Those prices are going up even 10 cents a gallon
in one day.
What about heating fuel next year? I spent this winter with
my heat turned down to 53 degrees, varying it only for a few
hours after I returned home from work. I have my master's
degree and am a teacher. I am struggling so hard in my new
home. It's a double wide and I've waited 50 years to get my
own home. Now, I am worried I won't be able to keep it as
everything else is going up, except my salary, which next
year will only go up slightly more than 1 percent.
The middle class is no longer the middle class . . . I've
slipped into the lower class after a winter of double heating
costs and now these new economic hits. How much more of a hit
can people take? The future looks extremely bleak to me. I
worry constantly about how I am going to pay my bills.
The first letter is from a young person in a small, rural,
college town in Vermont. The second was written by a woman
who lives in a city on the Gulf Coast of Florida.
I am now living out of my car.
As a student and a part time employee working for just
above minimum wage I have found it more and more difficult to
survive under these conditions. The drive to school and work
require me to use roughly 30 percent of my paycheck just to
go where I need to, to make it through my day.
When school is in session I am lucky to get about 170
dollars a week and with gas prices at their current all time
high I am continually finding myself under hardships because
of it. Recently I had to vacate my apartment because I could
not afford to pay rent and I am now living out of my car.
This too seems like it may not be able to last that much
longer because I am encountering difficulties in making my
car payment.
I can remember when gas prices were a little over a dollar
and I dream about life taking that turn once more. Because of
the gas prices I have found nothing but an extremely low
budget for food, I was forced out of my home and now I might
lose the one thing that is allowing me to continue my
schooling and keep going to work--my car.
I am struggling to understand why prices continue to rise
and I see no end in sight.
Our life style has drastically changed in the past 12 months.
I travel over 30 miles one way (60 miles roundtrip). My car
requires high test which is now $3.95/gal. I have approached
my company about doing a survey of its employees to see how
many co-workers travel over 20 miles one way, and suggested
that we start to work on a commuter policy. I suggested four
10-hour work days, telecommuting, setting up car pools,
setting up incentives for car poolers. I was turned down. I
was able to find another person who was interested in car
pooling & we have started to do that. I take breakfast,
coffee, lunch, and snacks to work daily. I do not go to the
hair dresser or nail salon as I used to. We stopped taking
weekend trips and plan to see our children in NJ only once
this year. Between the 30 percent credit card interest rates,
fuel cost, and food increases our life style has drastically
changed in the past 12 months.
Two women from Vermont write about what the economy is
doing to them and their families.
My mortgage is behind, we are at risk for foreclosure, and I
can't keep up with my car payments.
I am a 31 year old wife, mother of two. How has this
affected me? My husband drives 35 miles to work, that is a
one-way trip. He is putting an average of $80 a week into his
gas
[[Page 11950]]
tank. No, he doesn't drive an SUV or a half-ton work truck.
It's a small pickup truck that he needs as he builds houses.
The kicker is that he never puts more than half a tank in,
because we can't afford to fill it. I drive 15 miles one way,
and put about $40 a week into my 30-miles-to-the-gallon car.
Again, I never fill the tank--ever. We have even contemplated
having my husband quit his job because he isn't making much
more money weekly than he spends on gas. We could move to an
area that is closer to our jobs, but because of the market,
we cannot sell our house fast enough, or for a fair price.
Meanwhile, my mortgage is behind, we are at risk for
foreclosure, and I can't keep up with my car payments. My
parents, both in their 60's, are back to work so that they
can make ends meet, and struggle to come up with enough gas
money so they can get to doctor's appointments. They are
opting to close their house up for the winter, and stay with
my uncle so they don't have to put oil in their furnace. I
can't tell you how many times we had to fill our little gas
tanks with kerosene or diesel because we ran out of oil and
couldn't afford the $380 it would cost us to put a mere 100
gallons in. Needless to say, we are way behind on all of our
bills, we are still playing catch up with our winter
expenses. People that I know that have never struggled with
money, are now frequenting our local food shelf so they can
feed their families staple foods. Please listen to our pleas
and put ethics first.
We are barely staying afloat.
My family has been hit so hard by this economy, we are
barely staying afloat. We have remortgaged the house 4 times
in the last three years to pay credit card debt. Now we are
trying to tap into our annuity to pay more credit card debt.
The debts on the credit cards are all for bills. Mostly
grocery, oil and the mere cost of living.
My husband is a union carpenter and they just changed our
fantastic insurance plan to a terrible one with barely any
coverage. I have none of my doctors on it and I suffer from
painful nerve damage. I am not eligible for social security
disability and I am unable to work.
We had a dream to own our own home, and that dream came
true seven years ago. I am afraid our dream is slipping
through our fingers and it won't be long before we lose our
home, the way things are going.
A young couple in Burlington, Vermont writes of their
situation and their concerns.
I wonder some times if we should try to follow our dreams--
decide to have children?
Even after we bought our house, there was a time when I
could save a little here and there and feel secure and
hopeful for the future.
Recently, I have been trying to stretch out time between
grocery trips and have chosen to postpone necessary repairs
to our house simply because we just don't have the money to
do so.
We are frugal people with simple spending habits, mainly
food and our house expenses. We ride bicycles, buy bulk foods
and used clothing, repair and mend before buying new, and we
love this life.
But if we can't fix our roof, or become malnourished from
food choices on a family income of $50,000 yr, then what does
the future hold for the next generation?
I wonder some times if we should try to follow our dreams--
decide to have children? Try to buy a farm? All of these
thoughts lead me to another emotion--sadness.
These letters, the first from a single mother in Vermont,
the second from a retired couple also in Vermont, ask
questions that we as a Nation should listen to.
People say, `Cut back.'
I am a single mother, owning a home, preparing to send a
son to college, and working two jobs most of the time. While
I am managing to keep my house (I think I'm upside down given
the slump in market value), I am falling behind on my bills
and have to use my credit card more often for necessities.
People say, `Cut back.'
When I look at my bank and credit card statements, I see;
gas, groceries, gas, fuel oil, gas, groceries, school-related
activities, car maintenance, gas, electricity. Cut back on
what? The occasional pizza between jobs and athletic events?
The trip to college to seek financial aid? Clothes for work
and school?
Does anybody have a solution? Does anybody in Washington
care?
Thanks for your invitation to talk with you. We are
retired, 70 and 65 and living on Social Security and some
savings.
Like most Vermonters we use wood to offset the price of
being warm. Our last oil fill up was nearly $700. How can we
continue to make ends meet? My gasoline cost $239 last month.
Food and everything else we buy is going up every week
because of gouging from oil companies. We are worried about
the national debt and the trade deficit. What can be done to
bring them down? Does anybody have a solution? Does anybody
in Washington care?
____________________
HONORING RON MASON
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I, along with my Michigan colleague,
Senator Stabenow, would like to congratulate Ron Mason on a long and
distinguished career at Michigan State University. He has been integral
to the success of Michigan State's hockey program for more than 29
years and has positively impacted the lives of many young people
throughout his tenure at MSU.
Ron Mason enjoys the distinction of being the winningest coach in
college hockey history. That is an impressive feat, one of which he,
his family and the MSU community are proud. Ron spent 36 years as a
college hockey head coach, 23 of which were behind the bench at
Michigan State University. During his stellar career, he amassed 924
total wins and a record of 635-270-69 as head coach of the Spartans.
Ron guided the Spartans to 17 CCHA regular season and playoff titles,
and 23 appearances in the NCAA tournament, which stands as an all-time
record. In 1986, he led the Spartans to their second NCAA Hockey
National Championship in the school's history, and in 1972, he won a
NAIA Championship as head coach of Lake Superior State University.
After retiring as head coach of the Spartans, Ron accepted the job of
athletic director at Michigan State, where he would continue to make
important contributions to the success of the 25-sport athletic
department. Under his watch, the university won 11 conference
championships and one national championship. Fittingly, the national
championship was won by the ice hockey team, the program's third NCAA
national championship. Ron's legacy as athletic director also includes
the many contributions he has made in the lives of student-athletes at
MSU off the field. These efforts include the PACT initiative which has
enabled more than 300 student-athletes to participate in community
outreach efforts, the establishment of the Student-Athlete
Multicultural Center which provides leadership training to student-
athletes, and his highly successful fundraising efforts for the
athletic department.
One of the great privileges of coaching and working on the collegiate
level is the impact an individual can have in shaping the lives of
young men and women. Ron Mason accepted this responsibility and
flourished. In the process, he has become an important figure in MSU's
rich athletic tradition.
Ron's retirement will be aptly marked by a celebration on Thursday,
June 12 at MSU. We know our Senate colleagues join us in paying tribute
to Ron Mason on his many accomplishments over the years and wish him
and his family the very best in their future endeavors.
____________________
IN REMEMBRANCE OF ALFRED WAGONER LOVELESS
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to
pay tribute to Alfred Wagoner Loveless, a tireless and dedicated
community leader. Alfred was committed to serving the needs of his
community and served in various positions throughout his adult life in
Saginaw. His contributions were many, and he will be missed by those
whose lives he touched.
Alfred Wagoner Loveless was born in Detroit, MI, on March 9, 1931, to
Claude and Jesse Starr Loveless and moved shortly thereafter to
Saginaw. He is a graduate of Saginaw High School. During his years at
Saginaw High, he excelled athletically and would ultimately set several
school record in track and field. After his high school years, Alfred
attended Bay City Junior College and Bishop College.
Alfred Wagoner Loveless was a man of great faith who was devoted to
his family and to his community, and he received numerous awards and
recognitions throughout his life as a result of his work. His community
efforts focused on eradicating poverty, sickle cell prevention, along
with promoting self-determination and self-sufficiency. Alfred is
mourned by his family, the members of Zion Baptist Church, and many in
the greater Saginaw community. Alfred is survived by his wife Gloria
Hill Loveless and his son, Wagoner T. Loveless, in addition to a large
extended family.
This is, indeed, a great loss to all who knew him or for those who
have benefited from his work. I know my
[[Page 11951]]
colleagues will join me in paying tribute to the life and work of
Alfred Wagoner Loveless. I am sure his family takes comfort in knowing
that his legacy will be remembered.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEMBERING WILLIAM T. ``BILL'' McLAUGHLIN
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish today to honor Bill
McLaughlin, a man as renowned for his vision and leadership as for his
soft touch and utter humanity. Bill passed away on May 30, 2008, but
his legacy will live on for generations. Many remember Bill as a man
who turned the city of Wilmington into one of the financial capitals of
the world--I prefer to honor him as the truly decent, caring, and
visionary gentleman whom I have admired for my entire career.
To summarize Bill McLaughlin's life in a few words is beyond my
capabilities. It is impossible for me to speak of this brother, father,
and grandfather in terms of his well-documented public accomplishments.
To me, Bill McLaughlin was a friend, and a man.
As Shakespeare wrote, ``His life was gentle, and the elements / So
mixed in him that Nature might stand up / And say to all the world, /
This was a man!''
Bill McLaughlin was a man. As we Irish say when we want to pay the
highest compliment: Bill McLaughlin was a good man.
Bill was, at his core, a family man. He viewed everything through the
prism of family. And he was a great city leader because he loved the
city of Wilmington. On any given Sunday, you were as likely to see him
at an African-American church as you were at Catholic mass.
Of all Bill's wonderful qualities, perhaps the most unique--and most
useful--was his style of leadership. He had the insight to know what
had to be done and the wisdom to make other people think it was their
idea.
He was one of the last men and women of the ``greatest generation,''
recognizing that the values he was raised with--honor, decency,
humility and sacrifice--were universal values that defined who we are
as a nation. He used those ideals as his guidance, which is why Bill's
courageous decisions as an elected official were both profound and
simple for him. They were not difficult for him because they were
obvious to him; Bill always knew his true north.
Bill McLaughlin was a model for all of us, not just elected
officials. He lived his life, from beginning to end, by the same
guiding principles upon which our Nation is built. Bill will be sorely
missed, but as long as we remember his lessons, the world will be
better off. As Yeats wrote in ``The Lake Isle of Innisfree:''
I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart's core.
____________________
HONORING DR. DONALD F. AVERILL
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in
recognizing Dr. Donald F. Averill as he retires after almost 50 years
of service in education.
This month, Dr. Donald Averill will retire as chancellor of the San
Bernardino Community College District, SBCCD. Prior to joining SBCCD,
Dr. Averill served as the CEO of Palo Verde College. Dr. Averill more
than doubled the enrollment of full-time students to provide increased
educational opportunities throughout the region. His leadership enabled
physical and economic growth of academic infrastructure and enabled
Palo Verde College to earn accreditation. During his tenure as the CEO
for the San Bernardino Community College District, he greatly improved
the economic capacities of the district and increased cooperation
between colleges and secondary institutions, increasing enrollment in
the region by 45 percent.
Throughout his 47 years of service and commitment to improvements in
education, Dr. Donald Averill provided leadership both in California
higher education and in the San Bernardino community. He served as
chairman of the Economic and Workforce Development Advisory Committee
to the California Community College Board of Governors for 2 years and
chaired the Human Resources Commission of the Association of California
Community College Administrators for 5 years. He served the city of La
Habra, CA, as a planning commissioner for 12 years. Dr. Averill has
also served as president of the American Heart Association in Glendale,
CA.
As he retires from providing leadership and guidance to the faculty,
students, and staff of numerous institutions of higher education and to
countless communities in California, I am pleased to ask my colleagues
to join me in honoring a true leader in education and community
development.
____________________
HONORING NELL SOTO
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in
honoring California Assembly member Nell Soto on a lifetime of
achievement and advocacy for the people of California. Throughout her
tenure in both the California Assembly and the California State senate,
Nell Soto has worked tirelessly to improve the quality of life for the
people of California and our Nation. Despite recent health challenges,
this June she will celebrate her 82nd birthday and can look back on a
proud career in public service.
A sixth-generation resident of the City of Pomona, Nell Soto has been
a lifelong member of the southern California community and has been a
strong advocate for its communities throughout her life. Before coming
to the California Legislature, Nell Soto served 12 years on the city
council in Pomona. Her late husband Philip Soto served two terms in the
state legislature from 1962 to 1966. Nell was the first woman from the
San Gabriel Valley to serve on the South Coast Air Quality Management
Board. She served 10 years as a public affairs representative with the
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. In 1998 she
was elected to the California Assembly and in March of 2000 won a
special election to secure a seat in the California State senate, a
seat that she held until 2006. She now serves once again in the
California Assembly.
Throughout her tenure in the California Legislature, Nell has been an
impassioned advocate for stronger communities and an improved quality
of life and has worked to make improvements throughout the California
educational system. She has been a strong advocate of improvements in
infrastructure and transportation and worked hard to secure the
development of the Alameda Corridor East, an important rail
transportation project in inland southern California. She has been an
equally impassioned advocate for crime prevention, public safety, and
the environment, and recently served as chair of the Assembly Select
Committee on Perchlorate Contamination and has worked to secure funding
for improvements in drinking water safety from perchlorate
contamination.
A lifelong resident of southern California, mother of 6, grandmother
of 11, great-grandmother of 3, and spirited supporter of community
advocacy and selfless service, Nell Soto is a wonderful public servant.
As she looks back on decades of leadership and celebrates her 82nd
birthday, I am pleased to ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing
her good work.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ELTON ``MICK'' RINGSAK
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to an
outstanding advocate of small and rural business, Elton ``Mick''
Ringsak, who will be concluding his time as Small Business
Administration Region VIII Administrator in July of 2008.
For nearly 8 years he has been a champion for small business in rural
America. He has recognized the important role they play in
strengthening the local and national economies of our country and I
have appreciated the excellent work he has done for the State
[[Page 11952]]
of North Dakota. Mick has worked hard to provide Federal assistance to
small businesses so they can be productive and grow.
Not only is Mick Ringsak an advocate for small and rural businesses
in America, he is also an outstanding person. He has never lost the
values he gained growing up in Grafton, ND. During my years as Tax
Commissioner for the State of ND, I had the opportunity to work closely
with his father, a legislator in the State Senate from the Grafton
area.
Mick and his wife Claire are parents of three sons, Quint, Justin and
Zach. He is trustworthy, honest, and dedicated to making the economic
environment friendlier to small and rural businesses. Prior to his
appointment appointed as the SBA Region VIII Administrator in 2001,
Mick, a Vietnam veteran, owned and managed Miller's Boots and Shoes
along with his brother-in-law in Butte, MT.
I appreciate his work as SBA Region VIII Administrator, and I wish
Mick well in his future endeavors. I have enjoyed working with him in
developing North Dakota's small and rural businesses and he has also
been a good friend. I wish him all the best in his upcoming retirement
and look forward to his continuing leadership for small business for
many years to come.
____________________
125TH ANNIVERSARY OF AYR, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community
in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. On June 21
and 22, the residents of Ayr will come together to celebrate their
community and its historic founding.
Ayr is located in Cass County. Although its population is small, Ayr
holds an important place in our State's history. Originally founded in
October 1883 as Dunlop, the town was officially renamed Ayr by
postmaster Frank Dickinson. He chose to name the community Ayr in
recognition of Ayrshire, Scotland, the ancestral home of many of Ayr's
citizens at the time. Later, some residents tried to change the name of
the town again, but the territorial legislature took action to put an
end to the renaming effort.
Ayr is a community dedicated to service, with many citizens serving
both in the government and military. Many in the community have also
played a role in defining the preservation of North Dakotan history,
with community members such as Keith Johnson who was responsible for
much of the restoration of historic buildings in the Cass County
`Pioneer Village' project.
Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in
congratulating Ayr, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary
and in wishing them well for the future. By honoring Ayr and all other
towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering, frontier spirit alive
for future generations. It is places such as Ayr that have helped to
shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine
community is deserving of our recognition.
Ayr has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF HAGUE, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community
in North Dakota that is celebrating its 100th anniversary. On July 4
and 5, the residents of Hague will gather to celebrate their
community's history and founding.
In 1882, a rural post office was established to serve the Grandin
Brothers Bonanza Farm. In 1882, the Bonanza farm was 40,000 acres,
which made it the largest wheat farm in the world. This Bonanza farm
was managed by a man named John A. Hague, and he eventually lent his
name to the town of Hague.
Today, Hague is a small but vibrant community in south, central North
Dakota. Residents of the community are truly proud of the St. Mary's
Catholic Church, a Gothic-style, brick building built in 1929 that is
on the National Register of Historic Places. St. Mary's Church
possesses an iron cross cemetery that is a German-Russian tradition,
which makes it a unique cultural gem.
To celebrate its 100th anniversary, the town of Hague will be having
a wide range of events. To start off the festivities, the residents
will be participating in a Tractor Trek. The town will also have a
rodeo, parade, concerts, a magician, cloggers, and fireworks. Kristi
Goblade, a local resident of Hague, will be performing cowgirl yodeling
at the opening ceremony. A performance by Mylo Hatzenbuhler, a country
humorist, is also expected.
Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in
congratulating Hague, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years
and in wishing them well in the future. I believe that by honoring
Hague and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep
the frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places like
Hague that have helped to shape this country into what it is today. I
believe that Hague is deserving of our recognition.
Hague has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF KIEF, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a
community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 100th
anniversary. On June 21-22, the residents of Kief will gather to
celebrate their community's history and founding.
Kief is a small town located in the center of North Dakota with a
population of 16. The land upon which Kief was founded was first
homesteaded by a Ukrainian immigrant named Anton Bokovoy. In 1908, he
sold half of his land to the Tri-State Land Company, which then sold
the land to other settlers from Scandinavia, Russia, and Germany,
effectively establishing the town of Kief. It was customary to give the
first settler the opportunity to name the town. Anton Bokovoy chose to
name the settlement after his birthplace of Kiev, Ukraine.
Kief grew throughout the years. In 1910, the town was able to
construct a schoolhouse, which served the community's students until it
was closed in 1959. Kief officially became a village in 1918. At that
time, the town had about 300 inhabitants. The many businesses that
opened in Kief made the town a pleasant place to live. Multiple grain
elevators and businesses related to agriculture offered a livelihood to
many of the town's residents. In their free time, residents of Kief
could be found enjoying themselves at the outdoor theater, pool hall,
and bowling alley.
Today, Kief supports three businesses. Krueger's Standard Grocery has
been in operation since 1982. Recently, a long haul trucking company
and a truck freight brokerage have been established.
Current and former residents of Kief will gather to celebrate the
100th anniversary. They will enjoy a parade, an ice cream social, and a
street dance. Children and adults will play horseshoes, tug o' war, and
other games throughout the weekend. Horse and buggy rides will remind
celebrants of the conveyances of yesteryear.
Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in
congratulating Kief, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years and
in wishing them well through the next century. I believe that by
honoring Kief and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota,
we keep the frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places
like Kief that have helped to shape this country into what it is today.
I believe that the community of Kief is deserving of our recognition.
Kief has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
125TH ANNIVERSARY OF LAKOTA, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to recognize a community in
North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th anniversary. During
this year's July 4th celebration, the residents of Lakota will gather
to celebrate their community's history and founding.
[[Page 11953]]
In 1882, Lakota, a Great Northern Railroad site, was founded. Lakota
was named by Gov. Nehemiah G. Ordway for the Sioux word meaning
``allies.'' Lakota's post office was established in 1883, and it was
designated as the county seat in 1883. Lakota officially became a city
in 1889.
Today, Lakota remains a small, proud farming community. Lakota
residents enjoy many outdoor activities, from hunting to fishing in
nearby Devils and Stump Lakes. Many residents take pride in the local
golf course, Lakota Rock Creek Golf Course, saying that it is the
``best course around.'' The community is home to the A. M. Tofthagen
Library and Museum, which was recognized in 1991 as a North Dakota
historical site by the National Register of Historic Places.
To celebrate the 125th anniversary, the residents of Lakota will
gather for a wide range of events. An All School Reunion will be held
during the same weekend of the anniversary celebration. Lakota will
also celebrate with a variety show, banquet, craft show, parade, BBQ, a
dance, car and motorcycle show, and lots of activities for the kids.
I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Lakota, ND, and its
residents on their first 125 years and wishing them well in the future.
By honoring Lakota and all the other historic small towns of North
Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future
generations. It is places such as Lakota that have helped to shape this
country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is
deserving of our recognition.
Lakota has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
125TH ANNIVERSARY OF NEW ROCKFORD, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a
community in Eddy County, ND, that will be celebrating its 125th
anniversary. From July 3-6, the residents of New Rockford will gather
to celebrate their community's history and founding.
The Eddy County region was populated mainly by settlers of
Scandinavian origin. The first pioneers followed the trail blazed by
earlier Red River buffalo hunters. Later, they came by way of the
Northern Pacific Railway.
In 1882, Captain Walter G. Dunn established his merchandise store and
post office just to the south of present-day New Rockford. As the
railroads stretched northward, townsite promoters appeared a year
later. These advocates sited the settlement along the James River and
initially called it Garrison. Since Garrison was the name of another
post office, the settlers decided upon the name New Rockford, derived
from the area's river crossing.
Today, New Rockford is a quiet, scenic place of 1,463 people. The
township anchors a dynamic farm economy and contains a 117-acre
industrial park. New Rockford is renowned for holding the Central North
Dakota Steam Thresher's Reunion every third weekend of September, where
a unique collection of antique operational steam engines is displayed.
In addition, the community's rugged pioneering tradition persists and
has been passed on to hometown son James Buchli, an astronaut and
American hero.
New Rockford boasts a vibrant natural heritage and offers some of
North Dakota's finest wildlife habitats. Blessed to be near the
Sheyenne and James Rivers, the town is a prime locale for fishing. New
Rockford is also a hub for hunters because of the waterfowl, whitetail
deer, and upland game that populate the area.
To celebrate their 125th anniversary, the people of New Rockford have
planned a number of events, including pitchfork fondues, dances,
children's games, and a fireworks display.
Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in
congratulating New Rockford, ND, and its residents on their first 125
years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring
New Rockford and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we
keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations.
It is places such as North Rockford that have helped to shape this
country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is
deserving of our recognition.
New Rockford has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
100TH ANNIVERSARY OF REEDER, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to honor a
community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 100th anniversary. On
June 20-22, the residents of Reeder will gather to celebrate their
community's founding and history.
Reeder is located in the scenic southwestern part of North Dakota
with a population of about 181. The town was named after E.O. Reeder,
an assistant chief engineer with the Milwaukee Road Railroad, which
established a station in Reeder in 1908. By the end of 1908, it was a
thriving prairie town with numerous businesses.
In celebration of the community's centennial, there are many
activities planned for entertainment and to remember the town's
history. Events will include a parade, variety show, bike races,
dances, and plenty of food.
The centennial celebration will also serve as a high school reunion
for the graduates of Reeder High School. The school closed in 2000, but
the town has turned it into the Dakota Prairie Enrichment Center. The
community center is now used for receptions, basketball games, dances,
and benefits. It also provides lodging for those who travel to the area
to hunt, a popular activity in Reeder.
Mr. President, I ask the United States Senate to join me in
congratulating Reeder, ND, and its residents on their first 100 years
and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Reeder
and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the
pioneering tradition alive for future generations. Places such as
Reeder shaped this country into what it is today, which is why this
fine community deserves our recognition.
Reeder has a proud past and a bright future.
____________________
HONORING FREDERICKSBURG HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today I highlight an innovative and
incredible education program started by science teacher Brett Williams
from Fredericksburg High School in Fredericksburg, TX. The SystemsGo
Aeroscience program promotes engineering, strong workforce skills, and
improved academic performance by teaching high school students how to
design, develop and launch rockets.
The program is a 2-year, junior/senior program in which first-year
students design and develop remotely operated vehicles and unmanned
aerial vehicles for research or industrial applications. Second-year
students design and fabricate rockets for testing at altitudes from
80,000 feet to 100,000 feet. Through successes and failures, students
picked up valuable life skills such as problem solving, testing,
analysis, documentation, reporting, project management, teamwork, and
communication.
We are facing shortages of high-skilled workers in our country. The
S&P, Standard & Poor's, top 500 companies alone report over 140,000
vacancies for these positions. By developing workforce skills in tandem
with engineering studies, the SystemsGo Aeroscience programs is
training the next generation of scientists that will keep our country
globally competitive.
More than a decade after Mr. Williams and his students launched their
first rocket, Fredericksburg High School has received many accolades
including being the first high school to design and develop rockets
exceeding Mach 2. However, the statistic I find most impressive is that
80 percent of students in the aeroscience program continue to pursue
degrees in engineering in college.
By inspiring the next generation of scientists, we are not only
investing in individual students' success but also to the overall
wellbeing of our economy. America's most valuable asset is her human
capital. It is critical that we
[[Page 11954]]
continue to encourage exceptional teachers like Mr. Williams, and
programs such as the SystemsGo Aeroscience in order to maintain our
global leadership in innovation.
____________________
REMEMBERING CARL KULCZYK
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened by the death
of Carl Kulczyk last week.
I knew Carl the way many other Iowans did--through his passionate
commitment to the work of bringing hope and health care to underserved
communities in our State. When Carl began his work with the Iowa
Department of Public Health 14 years ago, there were just four
community health centers in Iowa; today there are three times as many
health centers, a migrant program, and yet another community health
center well on its way to getting permanent funding. Carl never cut a
ribbon or spoke at a groundbreaking, but let me say this: The expansion
of affordable, accessible health care services across Iowa would not
have happened without Carl's hard work.
But that is not all. Carl worked to support Critical Access
Hospitals. He brought physicians from overseas to care for Iowa's sick
and elderly. He nurtured the psychiatric physician assistant training
program. And, in his final days, he was working to get Iowans better
access to dental care.
There is an old expression that we make a living by what we get, but
we make a life by what we give. By that measure, Carl lived a very good
life, indeed. He gave his time and talents to securing quality health
care for tens of thousands of Iowans, most of them children--people who
otherwise would have gone without any health care. And though he was
dedicated to his work, his first priority was always his family.
In my book, the highest praise for Carl--for any person--is that he
was a good and decent man. He dedicated himself to serving others. He
had a mighty heart and was beloved by those of us who had the honor of
calling him friend, colleague, husband, father, brother, or uncle.
Carl had a very special blend of passion, humor, determination, high
intelligence, and a sense of adventure. He worked miracles for people
who so desperately needed a miracle. He took care of the least among
us, while never neglecting his family. I, for one, will always be in
his debt and grateful for his service to the people of Iowa. I extend
my deepest condolences to his wife Pam, to his children, Caleb and
Ezra, and to his entire family.
____________________
TAKE OUR DAUGHTERS AND SONS TO WORK DAY
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on April 24, 2008, 25 young men
and women from Louisiana and the Washington area took part in Take Our
Daughters and Sons to Work Day. I am going to submit all of their names
for the Record to show that they spent a day working the Senate with me
and with some of the other Senators and have seen firsthand the work
that goes on.
I want to acknowledge the MS Magazine Foundation that started Take
our Daughters and Sons to Work Day to thank them for organizing this
effort where there are thousands, maybe perhaps millions, of young
people who have taken a day out of their school work to go to the
various places where Americans are working to contribute to making this
country of ours a better country and this world a better place.
I ask to have the names printed in the Record for these young men and
women and thank them for being a part of this special day and taking
their time to come and learn about the workings of the Senate.
The list follows.
From The Bryn Mawr School: Alexandra Argo, Baltimore, MD;
from Urusline Academy: Kelly Francis Antrum, New Orleans, LA;
from Ursuline Academy: Jennifer Baker, New Orleans, LA; from
Lake Castle School: Anna Campbell, Abita Springs, LA; from
St. Angela Merici School: Margret Domingo, Metairie, LA; from
St. James Episcopal School: Ashton Eymard, Baton Rouge, LA;
from St. Margaret Mary: Cameron Gerhold, Slidell, LA; from
Georgetown Day School: Cleo Gill, Washington, DC; from
Georgetown Day School: Camilla Herrera, Washington, DC; from
Grace Episcopal School: Mary Snellings Inabnett, Monroe, LA;
from LSU Lab School: Jeremy Jetson, Baton Rouge, LA; from St.
Peter's: Marlena Jones, Washington, DC; from St. Dominic
School: Ashley Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from St. Dominic
School: Claire Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from St. Dominic
School: Katie Landrieu, New Orleans, LA; from Our Lady of
Prompt Succor: Alyse Lemoine, Dryprong, LA; from St. Dominic
School: Sarah Mayer, New Orleans, LA; from Academy of the
Sacred Heart: Natalie Lindon, St. Martinville, LA; from T.S.
Cooley Magnate School: Hanaiah Morris, Lake Charles, LA; from
LSU Lab School: McKenzie Prudhomme, Baton Rouge, LA; from St.
Dominic School: Alexandra Sensenbrenner, New Orleans, LA;
from St. Ignatius School: Mary Francis Seiter, Mobile, AL;
from Georgetown Day School: Mary Shannon Snellings,
Washington DC; from Ursuline Academy: Gabrielle Terrebonne,
Gretna, LA; from St. Margaret Catholic School: Brooke Walker,
Lake Charles, LA.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 3:01 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, without amendment:
S. 1245. An act to reform mutual aid agreements for the
National Capital Region.
S. 2516. An act to assist members of the Armed Forces in
obtaining United States citizenship, and for other purposes.
The message further announced that the House has passed the following
bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate:
H.R. 2632. An act to establish the Sabinoso Wilderness Area
in San Miguel County, New Mexico, and for other purposes.
H. R. 3022. An act to designate the John Krebs Wilderness
in the State of California, to add certain land to the
Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness, and for other
purposes.
H. R. 3682. An act to designate certain Federal lands in
Riverside County, California, as wilderness, to designate
certain river segments in Riverside County as a wild, scenic,
or recreational river, to adjust the boundary of the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and for
other purposes.
H. R. 4926. An act to establish a grant program for
automated external defibrillators in elementary and secondary
schools.
H. R. 5524. An act to amend the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act to authorize appropriations, and for other purposes.
H. R. 5569. An act to extend for 5 years the EB-5 regional
center pilot program, and for other purposes.
H. R. 5593. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to
make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 5,
United States Code, enacted by the Congressional Review Act.
H.R. 5683. An act to make certain reforms with respect to
the Government Accountability Office, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5778. An act to preserve the independence of the
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority.
H.R. 5938. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents,
and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 2632. An act to establish the Sabinoso Wilderness Area
in San Miguel County, New Mexico, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 3022. An act to designate the John Krebs Wilderness in
the State of California, to add certain land to the Sequoia-
Kings Canyon National Park Wilderness, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
H.R. 3682. An act to designate certain Federal lands in
Riverside County, California, as wilderness, to designate
certain river segments in Riverside County as a wild, scenic,
[[Page 11955]]
or recreational river, to adjust the boundary of the Santa
Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
H.R. 4926. An act to establish a grant program for
automated external defibrillators in elementary and secondary
schools; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
H.R. 5593. An act to amend title 5, United States Code, to
make technical amendments to certain provisions of title 5,
United States Code, enacted by the Congressional Review Act;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
H.R. 5683. An act to make certain reforms with respect to
the Government Accountability Office, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
H.R. 5938. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR
The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and placed on the calendar:
H.R. 5524. An act to amend the Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act to authorize appropriations, and for other purposes.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, June 10, 2008,
she had presented to the President of the United States the following
enrolled bill:
S. 2420. An act to encourage the donation of excess food to
nonprofit organizations that provide assistance to food-
insecure people in the United States in contracts entered
into by executive agencies for the provision, service, or
sale of food.
____________________
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-6540. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Pistachios Grown in California; Changes in Handling
Requirements'' (Docket No. AMS-FV-07-0082) received on June
4, 2008; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-6541. A communication from the President, Federal Home
Loan Bank of Seattle, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Bank's 2007 management report; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-6542. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, Fish
and Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Marine Mammal; Incidental Take During Species Activities
(Chukchi Sea)'' (RIN1018-AU41) received on June 4, 2008; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-6543. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
entitled, ``Research Credit Claims Audit Techniques Guide:
Credit for Increasing Research Activities'' (LMSB-04-0508-
030) received on June 4, 2008; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-6544. A communication from the Administrator, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, transmitting, pursuant
to law, the Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report
for the period ending March 31, 2008; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6545. A communication from the Chief Executive Officer,
Millennium Challenge Corporation, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the Office of Inspector General's Semiannual Report for
the period from October 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-6546. A communication from the White House Liaison,
Department of Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a vacancy in the position of U.S. Attorney for the
Western District of Virginia, received on June 3, 2008; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
EC-6547. A communication from the Federal Liaison Officer
of the Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Rules of Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences in Ex Parte Appeals'' (RIN0651-AC12) received
on June 4, 2008; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-368. A letter from a member of the South Carolina House
of Representatives relative to the economy; to the Committee
on Finance.
POM-369. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of Ohio urging Congress to enact
the Community Cancer Care Preservation Act of 2007, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
House Resolution No. 100
Whereas, the National Center for Health Statistics at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that
cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United
States, and its prevalence increases with age. Medicare
beneficiaries account for half of all cancer patients, and
more than 700,000 beneficiaries are newly diagnosed with some
form of cancer every year; and
Whereas, community cancer clinics, free-standing outpatient
facilities where cancer care is delivered in physician
offices, play an important role in winning the war on cancer.
According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology, these
clinics treat over 80% of Americans with cancer, providing
patients with early diagnosis, effective cancer therapies,
and innovative supportive care that reduce fatigue, nausea
and vomiting, and pain; and
Whereas, while the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement
and Modernization Act of 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-173) enacted
Medicare Part D, a welcomed drug benefit for America's
seniors, it created a severe reduction in Medicare's
reimbursement for oncology treatment. According to a July
2007 press release issued by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA),
one of the sponsors of the Senate version of the Community
Cancer Care Preservation Act of 2007 (S. 1750 of the 110th
Congress), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) has reduced Medicare payments to community cancer care
clinics by approximately three to four hundred million
dollars since 2005. A 2007 analysis by the accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers, predicts reimbursement reductions of
$13.8 billion over ten years; and
Whereas, the Ohio/West Virginia Hematology Oncology Society
asserts that the reduction in Medicare reimbursements for
community cancer care clinics has resulted in nearly all
cancer treatments being reimbursed below cost, crippling the
nation's cancer care delivery system and resulting in a
serious access-to-care crisis. Nearly 40% of states have
reported a serious impact since January 1, 2006, when the
full impact of the reductions became effective, and an
attempt to save costs is actually leading to higher costs as
care shifts to more expensive inpatient settings because
clinics have to reduce staff and close offices; and
Whereas, the Community Cancer Care Preservation Act of 2007
(H.R. 1190 and S. 1750 of the 110th Congress) provides
critical assistance to community oncologists that are
disadvantaged by CMS reforms brought forth by the Medicare
Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act. These
bills require CMS to reimburse oncologists for the actual
price of drugs (rather than for the discounted price between
the pharmaceutical manufacturer and the wholesaler), increase
reimbursement for chemotherapy administration and storage and
care of oncology drugs, and institute reimbursement for
medical oncologists who provide treatment planning; now
therefore be it
Resolved, That we, the members of the l27th General
Assembly of the State of Ohio, memorialize Congress to enact
the Community Cancer Care Preservation Act of 2007 to reform
the Medicare reimbursement methodology for cancer drugs and
their administration; and be it further
Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives
transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to the
Speaker and Clerk of the United States House of
Representatives, to the President Pro Tempore and Secretary
of the United States Senate, to the members of the Ohio
Congressional delegation, and to the news media of Ohio.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, without amendment:
S. 2607. A bill to make a technical correction to section
3009 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Rept. No. 110-
348).
____________________
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. VITTER:
S. 3104. A bill to require that all individuals convicted
of a felony under State law provide a DNA sample; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
[[Page 11956]]
By Mr. VITTER:
S. 3105. A bill to authorize funding for the Advancing
Justice through DNA Technology initiative; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kohl, and
Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 3106. A bill to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United
States Code (relating to the vessel hull design protection),
to clarify the definitions of a hull and a deck; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 3107. A bill to require the payment of compensation to
members of the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the
United States who were forced to perform slave labor by the
Imperial Government of Japan or by corporations of Japan
during World War II, or the surviving spouses of such
members, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3108. A bill to require the President to call a White
House Conference on Food and Nutrition; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Cardin, and Mr.
Lautenberg):
S. 3109. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency to establish a hazardous waste electronic manifest
system; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3110. A bill for the relief of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. Res. 589. A resolution designating the week beginning
June 9, 2008, as ``National Health Information Technology
Week''; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Hutchison,
and Mr. Hatch):
S. Res. 590. A resolution celebrating the 233rd birthday of
the Army and commending the men and women of the Army as
exceptional individuals who live by the Army values of
loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity,
and personal courage; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Bunning):
S. Con. Res. 88. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) new policy restricting women's access to medications
containing estriol does not serve the public interest; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 302
At the request of Mr. Vitter, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of S. 302, a bill to
establish a procedure to safeguard the Social Security Trust Funds.
S. 368
At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 368, a bill to amend the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to enhance the COPS
ON THE BEAT grant program, and for other purposes.
S. 388
At the request of Mr. Thune, the name of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Tester) was added as a cosponsor of S. 388, a bill to amend title
18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance
with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the
State.
S. 584
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 584, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rehabilitation credit and
the low-income housing credit.
S. 682
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 682, a bill to award a
congressional gold medal to Edward William Brooke III in recognition of
his unprecedented and enduring service to our Nation.
S. 879
At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn) was withdrawn as a cosponsor of S. 879, a bill to amend
the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.
S. 991
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs.
Murray) were added as cosponsors of S. 991, a bill to establish the
Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation under the authorities of the
Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961.
S. 1010
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1010, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage guaranteed lifetime income
payments from annuities and similar payments of life insurance proceeds
at dates later than death by excluding from income a portion of such
payments.
S. 1430
At the request of Mr. Obama, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1430, a bill to authorize
State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent
investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in
Iran's energy sector, and for other purposes.
S. 1437
At the request of Ms. Stabenow, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1437, a bill to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the
semicentennial of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
S. 1462
At the request of Mr. Rockefeller, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1462, a bill to amend part
E of title IV of the Social Security Act to promote the adoption of
children with special needs.
S. 1715
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1715, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate discriminatory
copayment rates for outpatient psychiatric services under the Medicare
program.
S. 1906
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1906, a bill to
understand and comprehensively address the oral health problems
associated with methamphetamine use.
S. 1954
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1954, a bill
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve access to
pharmacies under part D.
S. 1980
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1980, a bill to improve the
quality of, and access to, long-term care.
S. 2059
At the request of Mr. Tester, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2059, a bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
clarify the eligibility requirements with respect to airline flight
crews.
S. 2166
At the request of Mr. Casey, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2166, a bill to provide for
greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts
owed to the United States and the international financial institutions
by low-income countries, and for other purposes.
S. 2170
At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2170, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the treatment of qualified
restaurant property as 15-year property for purposes of the
depreciation deduction.
[[Page 11957]]
S. 2479
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2479, a bill to catalyze
change in the care and treatment of diabetes in the United States.
S. 2504
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2504, a bill
to amend title 36, United States Code, to grant a Federal charter to
the Military Officers Association of America, and for other purposes.
S. 2569
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2569, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize the Director of the
National Cancer Institute to make grants for the discovery and
validation of biomarkers for use in risk stratification for, and the
early detection and screening of, ovarian cancer.
S. 2579
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) and
the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) were added as cosponsors of S.
2579, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in
recognition and celebration of the establishment of the United States
Army in 1775, to honor the American soldier of both today and
yesterday, in wartime and in peace, and to commemorate the traditions,
history, and heritage of the United States Army and its role in
American society, from the colonial period to today.
S. 2668
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Salazar) 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. 2708
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2708, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
attract and retain trained health care professionals and direct care
workers dedicated to providing quality care to the growing population
of older Americans.
S. 2821
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2821, a bill 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.
S. 2874
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) 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. 2888
At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2888, a bill to protect
the property and security of homeowners who are subject to foreclosure
proceedings, and for other purposes.
S. 2920
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2920, a bill to reauthorize and
improve the financing and entrepreneurial development programs of the
Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.
S. 2931
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2931, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to exempt complex rehabilitation
products and assistive technology products from the Medicare
competitive acquisition program.
S. 2983
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2983, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to prevent and cure diabetes and to
promote and improve the care of individuals with diabetes for the
reduction of health disparities within racial and ethnic minority
groups, including the African-American, Hispanic American, Asian
American and Pacific Islander, and American Indian and Alaskan Native
communities.
S. 3008
At the request of Mr. Bond, the names of the Senator from Texas (Mr.
Cornyn) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3008, a bill to improve and enhance the mental health
care benefits available to members of the Armed Forces and veterans, to
enhance counseling and other benefits available to survivors of members
of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes.
S. 3070
At the request of Mr. Sessions, the names of the Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Webb), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the
Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill), the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. Pryor), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Carper), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray), the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow), the
Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kohl), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Whitehouse), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), the Senator
from New York (Mr. Schumer), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3070, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the Boy Scouts of
America, and for other proposes.
S. 3073
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3073, a bill
to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to
improve procedures for the collection and delivery of absentee ballots
of absent overseas uniformed services voters, and for other purposes.
S. 3080
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3080, a bill to ensure
parity between the temporary duty imposed on ethanol and tax credits
provided on ethanol.
S. 3098
At the request of Mr. Chambliss, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 3098, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Bunning, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. 3098, supra.
S. 3099
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3099, a bill to prohibit
the use of funds by the Department of Defense for propaganda purposes
within the United States not otherwise specifically authorized by law.
[[Page 11958]]
S.J. RES. 37
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 37, a joint
resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the United States
should sign the Declaration of the Oslo Conference on Cluster Munitions
and future instruments banning cluster munitions that cause
unaccapetable harm to civilians.
S. RES. 580
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the names of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Corker), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) and the
Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) were added as cosponsors of S.
Res. 580, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate on preventing
Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Kohl, and Mr.
Whitehouse):
S. 3106. A bill to amend chapter 13 of title 17, United States Code
(relating to the vessel hull design protection), to clarify the
definitions of a hull and a deck; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am happy to join with Senators Cornyn,
Kohl, and Whitehouse as we introduce the Vessel Hull Design Protection
Act Amendments of 2008. An earlier version of this small but important
piece of legislation was passed unanimously by both the Judiciary
Committee and the full Senate last year. The updated version of the
bill that we offer today reflects conversations we have had recently
with the Navy and gives the Department of Defense full assurance that
Government and defense designs will not be subject to unwarranted
restrictions.
Congress passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act in 1998 to
recognize the significant time, effort, and innovation involved in ship
design. Litigation under the bill, however, has made it clear that in
order to be effective, this law needs to be clarified and refined. Our
bill does exactly this, and no more, by clarifying the definition of
``hull'' and ``deck.'' This ensures that the intellectual property
rights of vessel hull designers will be protected. I hope the Senate
will move quickly to pass this revised, bipartisan legislation.
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. 3106
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. VESSEL HULL DESIGN PROTECTION.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Vessel
Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2008''.
(b) Designs Protected.--Section 1301(a) of title 17, United
States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Vessel features.--The design of a vessel hull, deck,
or combination of a hull and deck, including a plug or mold,
is subject to protection under this chapter, notwithstanding
section 1302(4).''.
(c) Exceptions.--Section 1301(a) of title 17, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Exceptions.--Department of Defense rights in a
registered design under this chapter, including the right to
build to such registered design, shall be determined solely
by operation of section 2320 of title 10, the United States
Code, or by the instrument under which the design was
developed for the United States Government.''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 1301(b) of title 17, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``vessel hull, including
a plug or mold,'' and inserting ``vessel hull or deck,
including a plug or mold,'';
(2) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
``(4) A `hull' is the exterior frame or body of a vessel,
exclusive of the deck, superstructure, masts, sails, yards,
rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other attachments.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) A `deck' is the horizontal surface of a vessel that
covers the hull, including exterior cabin and cockpit
surfaces, and exclusive of masts, sails, yards, rigging,
hardware, fixtures, and other attachments.''.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 3107. A bill to require the payment of compensation to members of
the Armed Forces and civilian employees of the United States who were
forced to perform slave labor by the Imperial Government of Japan or by
corporations of Japan during World War II, or the surviving spouses of
such members, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator
Hatch to introduce legislation to acknowledge the heroic contributions
of American ex-prisoners of war who were forced into slave labor by the
Imperial Government of Japan during the Second World War. The bill
would award a one-time compensation of $20,000 to each surviving
veteran, government employee, or government contractor who was
imprisoned by the Japanese during World War II and forced to perform
slave labor to support Japan's war effort. The bill would also extend
that compensation to surviving spouses of such veterans or employees.
While this compensation is only a small token of our Nation's
gratitude, it is my hope that it serves as recognition of the vital
military contributions and sacrifices made by these individuals,
particularly as those Americans who sacrificed so much approach their
final years.
From December 1941 to April 1942, American military forces stationed
in the Philippines fought valiantly for almost 6 months against
overwhelming Japanese military forces on the Bataan peninsula. As a
result of that prolonged conflict, U.S. forces prevented Japan from
achieving its strategic objective of capturing Australia and thereby
dooming Allied hopes in the Pacific theater from the outset of the war.
Once captured by the Japanese, American prisoners of war in the
Philippines endured the infamous ``Death March'' during which
approximately 730 Americans died en route to the notorious Japanese
prison camp north of Manila. Of the survivors of the March, more than
5,000 more Americans perished during the first 6 months of captivity.
The Japanese forced many of those who survived captivity to embark on
``hell ships''--unmarked merchant ships--to be transported to Japan to
work as slave laborers in company-owned mines, shipyards, and
factories. Tragically, many of our own men perished in those unmarked
vessels, victims of attacks by American military aircraft and
submarines who were unaware that American POWs were aboard those ships.
The stories of other American military and civilian employees captured
by the Japanese at Wake Island, Java, Manchuria, Taiwan, and other
locations in the Pacific and enslaved to support the war effort are
equally compelling.
The heroic performance of our soldiers at Bataan and during
incarceration in POW camps earned them well-deserved citations
following the war. For example, the 200th and 515th Coastal Artillery
units from New Mexico that served to defend the retreating troops at
Bataan received three Presidential Unit Citations and the Philippine
Presidential Unit Citation for their heroism. New Mexico is
particularly proud of these men whose heroism I seek to salute through
this legislation today.
Sadly, the Americans who were enslaved by Japan have never been
adequately compensated for the excruciating sacrifices they made while
in Japanese military and company prisons and labor camps. In the War
Claims Acts of 1948 and 1952, our Government paid former U.S. prisoners
of war $1.00 per day for ``missed meals'' during their captivity, and
later, $1.50 per day for ``forced labor, pain, and suffering.'' Even
those paltry compensations were not widely known about or received by
all veterans who qualified for them. In addition, efforts to obtain
appropriate compensation from the Government of Japan, or from Japanese
companies through litigation, have been unsuccessful and are not likely
to succeed in a timely enough manner to compensate surviving veterans
or others who would be eligible.
Other Allied nations have already set international precedent to
honor their
[[Page 11959]]
enslaved veterans. Allied governments, including Canada, New Zealand,
Australia, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have
authorized compensation gratuities. For example, in 1998, the Canadian
Government authorized the payment of $15,600, Canadian dollars, to
veterans who were captured in Hong Kong and enslaved by the Japanese.
And in 2000, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a multi-million pound
compensation fund for former enslaved Japanese prisoners of war in
recognition of their heroic experiences. It is long overdue for our own
Nation to provide similar compensation to those who gave so much to
defend and preserve our freedom.
Approximately 10 years have passed since I began advocating for
passage of this type of compensation, and in that time, many of these
brave heroes who deserve recognition have already passed away.
Fortunately, Congress still has time to honor those individuals who are
alive today to share their courageous and heartrending stories. For
this reason, I believe the Congress should avoid any further delay and
act as soon as possible to enact this important legislation. I thank
Senator Hatch for agreeing to cosponsor this legislation, and I urge my
fellow Senators to support it.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3108. A bill to require the President to call a White House
Conference on Food and Nutrition; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, in 2003, I made my maiden floor speech on
hunger issues and how we as a Nation can tackle them. I have continued
my strongest efforts to raise awareness that 1 in 10 U.S. households is
affected by hunger and to advance legislation and programs that aid the
hungry.
Today is Hunger Awareness Day, and as I have in years past, I welcome
the opportunity to speak about the food insecurity problems that
persist throughout this country and the world. Most importantly, I come
to offer ideas and invigorate the discussion about solutions.
With food and energy prices on the rise, we must be particularly
cognizant of the hungry. Not only do hard economic times generate a
greater need for food assistance, but the very agencies and
organizations that provide assistance are trying to meet growing
demands while food and gas grow more expensive.
In the past few months, I have read numerous stories in North
Carolina newspapers about soup kitchens and food banks struggling to
serve all those in need and even schools strapped for cash to pay for
their lunch programs.
For example, last weekend, the Asheville Citizen-Times ran a letter
to the editor from MANNA FoodBank which said:
In 2006, we estimated that 115,500 different North
Carolinians sought emergency food aid from MANNA partner
agencies in a single year--one in six of our neighbors.
However, that data has rapidly become outdated by shifting
economic tides. Surging energy and food prices combined with
stagnant economic growth have dramatically increased the
ranks of those seeking help from food banks.
In the May 29, 2008 Raleigh News & Observer, David Reese, the chief
operating officer for food recovery and distribution at the Inter-Faith
Food Shuttle, is quoted as saying:
A lot of people don't realize or don't take into account
the dramatic effect that high fuel prices have, that trickle-
down effect. . . . It doesn't only affect the regular
consumer who is driving to the store. It also affects the
distributor, also affects the retailer and then the end
result, it affects us as a food-rescue organization.
Unfortunately, we know too well high food prices and hunger problems
are not unique to North Carolina or even just to the United States.
Indeed, as food prices continue to soar, the impacts are felt around
the globe, especially among the poor in developing nations. The
increase in food costs has led to international shortfalls of food
supplies, resulting in food riots and civil unrest in many regions. In
fact, the World Bank recently estimated that more than 100 million
people are being pushed into poverty as a result of the escalation of
food prices.
Congress needs to take action to ensure that policies are helping,
not hurting, global food supply. For example, I believe we must
reconsider mandating the use of certain biofuels which is, in part, why
food prices are escalating. Last month, I joined several of my
colleagues in introducing legislation to freeze the corn-based ethanol
mandate at this year's level, preventing the Environmental Protection
Agency from increasing the corn-based ethanol mandate included in the
Energy Act of 2007 to the mandated 15 billion gallons. Instead, my
legislation maintains the current level at 9 billion gallons.
During consideration of the 2007 Energy bill, I tried to include a
safeguard in the renewable fuel standard which would have helped
prevent a situation such as we face today. Mandates have led to more
than 25 percent of America's corn crop being diverted to make fuel. In
the last 2 years, the price of corn has nearly tripled, thereby
resulting in feed price increases that impact the cost of items such as
milk, eggs, and meat. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, food
inflation rose by 4.9 percent last year, and studies suggest the cost
of food will continue to escalate over the next few years.
While we continue to push for efforts to address rising food prices,
we can celebrate some hard-fought victories in the recently passed farm
bill that will support healthy foods in schools and health food banks,
community kitchens, and other organizations that feed the hungry. For
instance, I am pleased the farm bill's nutrition title expands the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to all 50 States. In North Carolina,
nearly 1.4 million children are enrolled in this program, which helps
schools purchase locally farmed fruits and vegetables to provide
healthy meals and fight childhood obesity. The bill also includes $1.25
billion for commodity purchases for food banks, including $50 million
for 2008 to immediately address shortages at these organizations.
The farm bill also implements the Food Employment Empowerment and
Development Program, the FEED Program, which I worked on with my
colleagues Senators Frank Lautenberg and Blanche Lincoln. This program
helps fight hunger by combining food rescue with job training and,
thus, teaching unemployed and homeless adults the skills needed to work
in the food service industry. It is a wonderful program.
Around the corner from the U.S. Capitol, students are hard at work in
the DC Central Kitchen's culinary job-training class. Earlier today, I
visited the kitchen which has a model FEED-type program that began in
1990. It is always a privilege to visit the kitchen and meet with
individuals who faced adversity but who are now on track for a career
in the food service industry. I look forward to the FEED Act supporting
numerous similar programs, such as the Community Culinary School in
Charlotte, NC, and others around the Nation.
In my ongoing efforts to stamp out hunger, today I am joining my
colleague, Senator John Kerry, to introduce legislation requiring a
White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health to be held by the
end of 2010. It has been nearly 40 years since the first and only White
House summit reviewed national nutrition policy. I actually helped
organize that conference while working for the White House Office of
Consumer Affairs.
Positive developments and effective policies came out of those
discussions. With more than 35 million Americans today facing food
insecurity issues, it is high time we make ending hunger and improving
health and nutrition national priorities. I encourage my colleagues to
sign on to my bill.
This week, I also plan to offer an amendment to the tax extenders
bill that addresses four tax issues which will encourage food donations
and volunteering to help the hungry. This package was included in the
Senate-passed farm bill but, unfortunately, was removed in conference.
It will extend for 2 years a provision from the Pension Protection Act
that allows any taxpayer to claim an enhanced deduction for donations
of food. It allows
[[Page 11960]]
restaurants to qualify for this deduction. It simplifies the rules that
allow farmers and ranchers to take advantage of this deduction for
donating their products. And it allows volunteers to receive a tax
deduction for mileage incurred while transporting food donations.
Along these lines, I also have a bill that will provide a tax credit
for the cost of transporting food to assist the hunger relief efforts
of charitable organizations. The hunger relief trucking tax credit will
benefit groups such as the Society of St. Andrew, which helps recover
food for the needy. The society is very active in the area of gleaning,
Mr. President, where excess crops that would otherwise be thrown out
are taken from farms, packinghouses, and warehouses, and distributed to
the needy. Each year in this country, 696 billion pounds of good,
nutritious food is left over or thrown away. Gleaning helps eliminate
this waste. It helps the farmer because he doesn't have to haul off or
plow under crops that don't meet exact specifications of grocery
chains, and it helps the hungry by giving them nutritious fresh foods.
It has been a joy to glean fields in North Carolina with the society's
dedicated volunteers.
In addition to working closely with the Society of St. Andrew, I have
been fortunate to meet with a number of organizations that are doing
tremendous work to combat hunger in North Carolina--from our food banks
to Meals on Wheels and others. These organizations rely on dedicated
staff and volunteers who truly live by the ideal of helping others in
their time of need.
Before I close, let me share an experience I had as president of the
American Red Cross. I visited Somalia during the heart-wrenching
famine. In Baidoa, I came across a little boy lying under a gunnysack,
and I thought he was dead. His brother pulled back that gunnysack and
sat his little brother up, and I could see that he was severely
malnourished. There was no way that he could eat the rice and beans
that were in a bowl there beside him, and so I asked for camel's milk
to feed him. And as I put my arm around that little boy to lift that
cup to his mouth, it was incredible, the feeling of the little bones
almost piercing through his flesh. It is something I will never forget.
That is when the horror of starvation becomes real, when you can touch
it.
Since I encountered that little boy in Somalia so many years ago, I
have been determined to do everything in my power to fight hunger, not
just at home but also internationally. For example, I have been proud
to work with Senator Dick Durbin in promoting the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. It has
reduced hunger among school-aged children and improved literacy and
primary education enrollment in areas where conflict, hunger, poverty,
and HIV/AIDS are prevalent.
While tackling hunger beyond our borders is a greater challenge, in
the United States, the land of plenty, no American--no American--should
wake up wondering whether he or she will have enough to eat today. I
firmly believe with dedicated organizations, caring citizens, and a
focused government working together, ending hunger in America is
certainly a victory within reach.
______
By Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 3109. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a
hazardous waste electronic manifest system; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bipartisan bill
that seeks to update the way in which the Federal Government tracks the
shipment of hazardous waste. I am pleased that Senators Cardin and
Lautenberg have joined me in introducing this bill, which builds upon
the bipartisan legislation I introduced last Congress with Senator
Jeffords and Senator Inhofe when I served as chairman of the
Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste
Management.
Simply put, our legislation would direct the Environmental Protection
Agency to begin a much needed transformation of the tracking of
hazardous wastes. While the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
RCRA, that Congress passed in 1976 has done a great deal to protect
human health and the environment, the paper manifest process that is
used to track federally-regulated hazardous wastes from ``cradle to
grave'' has turned into the single largest continuous paperwork burden
imposed on regulated entities under Federal environmental law.
On an annual basis, roughly 139,000 regulated entities track anywhere
between 2.5-5 million hazardous waste manifests. This paperwork burden
has been estimated to cost states and the regulated community between
$200 million and $500 million annually. This is largely due to the fact
that each paper manifest is comprised of numerous carbon copies that
must be signed, mailed to waste generators and State agencies--and then
ultimately stored by each regulated entity. To underscore just how
cumbersome this paper manifest is, the Environmental Protection Agency
has noted that roughly 22 States don't even keep copies because it
represents too large of a paperwork burden.
The benefits of using electronic manifests are numerous and each of
the witnesses who testified at the EPW Subcommittee hearing that I
chaired on September 26, 2006 spoke to the benefits it would have--both
in terms of improving federal oversight of hazardous waste transport
and lessening the paperwork burden on regulated entities.
I would like to stress that this legislation builds upon the measure
I introduced last Congress and incorporates a handful of changes made
at the request of various stakeholders, including Senator Boxer who now
chairs the EPW Committee.
Because of the broad support that this measure enjoys, I look forward
to the long awaited mark-up of this bill before the EPW Committee. I
would like to thank both Senator Cardin and Senator Lautenberg for
their support as we work to improve the arcane system currently
utilized to track hazardous waste shipments. Transitioning to an
electronic system is long overdue and this legislation would be paid
for by the users of the system--the generators and waste companies that
handle hazardous waste.
In closing I would like to highlight just one of the statements of
support I received for the legislation that I began working on over 2
years ago. The following statement of support came from Terrence Gray,
President of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials, who noted:
It is appropriate, many would say overdue, in the 21st
Century economy to have the capability of using electronic
reporting for such a tracking system, and we are supportive
of your efforts to initiate this process. It is our
understanding that [this bill] is the necessary first step in
designating the detailed system for electronic manifesting,
and for that reason we think it should go forward.
I trust that my colleagues will recognize the benefits of setting up
an electronic manifest system as is envisioned under the Thune-Cardin
bill we have introduced today.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I join the Senator from South Dakota, Mr.
Thune, in cosponsoring a bill to modernize the tracking of hazardous
waste. The Federal waste law requires the tracking of hazardous waste
from ``cradle to grave.'' This tracking system is designed to provide
an enforceable chain of custody for hazardous wastes. The law provides
a strong incentive for transporters to manage the waste in a
responsible fashion. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
economic analysis estimates that over 139,000 regulated entities track
between 2.4 and 5.1 million shipments a year.
This system provides for appropriate stewardship of the hazardous
waste products of our modem world. Unfortunately, the tracking system
itself is in serious need of modernization.
Currently, the tracking is handled entirely through a paper manifest
system. The paperwork burden is enormous. Each manifest form has 7 or 8
[[Page 11961]]
copies, which currently must be manually filled out and signed with pen
and ink signatures, physically carried with waste shipments, mailed to
generators and state agencies, and finally stored among facility
records.
The paperwork burden is so great that 22 States and the EPA do not
even collect copies of the forms. Those that do so get their copies
months after the waste has been shipped. In the vast majority of cases,
the only time regulators look at the manifests is during inspections or
after a disaster to identify the responsible parties.
Under the Thune-Cardin bill, the paper manifest will be replaced by
an electronic manifest. The bill sets up a funding system for the
manifest paid for by the users of the system, the generators, and waste
companies that handle hazardous waste.
An e-manifest system would remove a tremendous paperwork burden,
assist the States in receiving data more readily in a format they can
use, improve the public's access to waste shipment information and save
over $100 million every year. First responders could get data in real-
time. That is why groups as varied as Dow Chemical, Sierra Club and the
Association of State, Territorial, Solid Waste Management Officials
support this bill.
EPA does not have the funding to set up this system, so the bill uses
a unique way to contract for the work. Companies will ``bid'' to set up
the system at their cost and risk. They will be paid back on a per
manifest basis by the users, waste generators, and handlers. This puts
the burden on the private company or companies to meet the needs of the
users of the system. The legislation is needed so that the funds
collected go to the operation of the program rather than go to the
general treasury.
A hearing was held on this issue in 2006 on a similar bill, S. 3871
introduced by Senators Thune, Jeffords, and Inhofe. No serious
objections were made at that time and strong support was expressed by
all the witnesses including EPA.
This is legislation that is overdue. I ask Members to join us in
supporting this legislation which has garnered the backing of industry,
States, and environmental groups. It is time for the waste manifest
system to move into the 21st Century.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 3110. A bill for the relief of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
Arthur Mkoyan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and
their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who
have been living and working in Fresno, California for over a decade.
The story of the Mkoian family is compelling and I believe they merit
Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United
States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant at in
a division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position,
he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles.
He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief.
He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the
request of the chief.
After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him
that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was
instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian
believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had
filed with the higher authorities.
During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he
owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept
entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise.
When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone
calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr.
Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle
registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else
to be silent about.
Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to
kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her
husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the
incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the
Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident
occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian
in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days.
Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and
then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a
better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3-
year old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The
family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no
further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than
this bill.
Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur
is now 17 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who
is a U.S. citizen.
Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. What is noteworthy
about Arthur, is that out of the 562 students graduating from Bullard
High School he is one of three valedictorians for the Class of 2008.
Today is his graduation day. He has long dreamed of attending the
University of California, Davis. He was accepted this past Spring and
plans to complete a degree in chemistry. In addition to maintaining a
4.0 grade point average and taking a rigorous academic course load,
Arthur also finds the time to volunteer at the St. Agnes Medical Center
emergency room.
Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he
stands out among his peers at Kratt Elementary School and has been
invited to apply to the magnet Computech Middle School next year.
In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian
have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy to the
community and their church. Mr. Mkoian has been employed for years at
G.A.C. Trucking in Glendale, California. According to his supervisor,
he is one of their best employees, having earned a reputation for
trustworthiness and skill.
His wife, Asmik, has also been working part-time for 4 years at
Gottshalks department store. In addition, she has taken classes at
Fresno Community College and has completed their Medical Assistant
Program.
The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and
Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday
School.
There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their
church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large.
To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family
in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have
letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa,
requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family.
I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our
extraordinary consideration.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 3110
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR RUBEN MKOIAN, ASMIK
KARAPETIAN, AND ARTHUR MKOYAN.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
[[Page 11962]]
Arthur Mkoyan shall each be eligible for the issuance of an
immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan enters the United States before
the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Ruben
Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan shall be
considered to have entered and remained lawfully in the
United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of status
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application
for the issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for
adjustment of status is filed, with appropriate fees, not
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
Arthur Mkoyan under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
Arthur Mkoyan under section 202(e) of such Act.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: It was a pleasure speaking with you
today regarding the pending June 20 deportation of Arthur
Mkoyan and his family. I appreciate you taking the time to
discuss this issue with me.
From the limited details I have been provided, it appears
there is no feasible judicial remedy that would allow Mr.
Mkoyan to remain in the United States. Therefore, from what
my office has determined, the only immediate solution
requires Senate introduced private immigration legislation.
As you know, doing so can result in a stay of deportation for
the subject of the legislation.
Based on the information my office is currently privy to,
Mr. Mkoyan's case appears to be one that would merit
introduction of this type of legislation. Although this is
very unlikely to be effective in the House, previous
legislation of this nature has been successful in the Senate.
I am aware that you have been willing in the past to
sponsor bills for this purpose. To that end, I stand ready to
lend my support if after a thorough review of Mr. Mkoyan's
previous case history, you find such legislation appropriate.
I will continue to review the situation as it progresses
and look forward to working with you in our efforts to help
Mr. Mkoyan and his family. Thank you for your prompt
attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
George Radanovich,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2008.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: As you are well aware, Mr. Arthur
Mkoyan and his family are facing pending deportation back to
Armenia. From the limited details I have been provided, it
appears that there is no existing judicial remedy which would
allow Mr. Mkoyan to remain in the United States. Unless any
further steps are taken, Mr. Mkoyan and his mother will be
deported to Armenia.
Please know as this issue moves forward I am ready to
support you where I can, and work with you to assist Mr.
Mkoyan and his family.
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Costa,
Member of Congress.
____
G.A.C. Trucking,
Glendale, CA, June 2, 2008.
I, Ashot Gharibyan, the owner of GAC Trucking do hereby
certify that Ruben Mkoian was one of my best employees. After
his leave my business slowed down because I could not find
any other driver as trustworthy and knowledgeable in his work
as Ruben Mkoian. He knows his job and has never given me any
problems. I still need him to improve my business without him
it will be impossible to put my business back to normal.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Ashot Gharibyan,
President.
____
Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of my son Arthur Mkoyan,
2008 Valedictorian of Fresno's magnet Bullard High School, I
write to explain why our family should be allowed to stay in
the United States. Time is of the essence as our deportation
is imminent, and Arthur has been accepted to begin UC Davis
this fall.
My husband Ruben Mkoian came to the United States in 1992
and applied for political asylum. After two years I came with
Arthur, and we became part of Ruben's case. After seven years
Ruben was granted an interview with an immigration officer,
but was denied. As the law allows, we appealed our case in an
immigration court. Our case was denied again, but believing
in our situation, we appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Unfortunately, this effort failed last March.
We entered this country legally, and worked hard from the
first day. None of us have any criminal record. We respect
the laws, pay taxes, and admire America deeply. It is in this
context of civic respect that our sons were raised, and in
which we appeal to you for support. Each of the four of us is
valuable to the United States. In addition to his academic
achievements, my son Arthur serves as an emergency room
volunteer at Saint Agnes Medical Center in Fresno. My younger
son Arsen, who was born in America, is a standout performer
at Kratt Elementary School, earning an invitation to apply to
the magnet Computech Middle School. I am proud to have put
myself through Fresno City Community College, completing the
Medical Assisting program. And my husband Ruben was so
valuable at his place of employment that the owner, suffering
a revenue loss due to Ruben's detention, writes in the
attached letter that Ruben's return is economically
necessary.
I implore you to introduce into the United States Senate a
Private Bill that would halt our deportation. Our Immigration
and Customs Enforcement case number is A70-783-979. As a
mother, wife, and woman, I beg you to enable our sons to
fulfill their gift of intellect in the California they love,
and to enable our family to meaningfully contribute to the
America to which we so sincerely yearn to belong.
Yours most truly,
Asmik Karapetian,
Mother.
Arthur Mkoyan,
age 17.
Arsen Mkoian,
age 12.
____
Bullard High School,
Fresno, CA, May 27, 2008.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Tulare,
Fresno, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein: Artur Mkoyan has asked me to write
a letter of reference, related to a problem with his and his
family's immigration status.
Artur has been my student at Bullard High School for two
years, last year in Honors Chemistry and this year in
Advanced Placement Chemistry. He is a fine student, achieving
A and B grades in my classes and maintaining a 3.50 GPA
overall, including five Advanced Placement classes. I have
found him to be a consistent and reliable student, willingly
attending the weekly evening lab sessions and conscientious
about getting all of his work done. I have complete
confidence in his integrity.
I think he found it difficult to ask me for this letter,
because he and his family seem very proud and self-
sufficient. I know he will be successful at college next year
and will be an asset to the community when he finishes his
education. If I can supply any further information, please do
not hesitate to contact me. I am including both my school and
home contact information, as the school year is drawing to a
close.
Sincerely,
Christine Lindley,
Science Department.
____
Bullard High School,
Fresno, CA, May 29, 2008.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Tulare St.,
Tulare, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing this letter for Artur
Mkoyan--who has been my student for two years. He is a bright
young man with potential for an incredible future.
Artur was in my sophomore GATE English class, performing
well and contributing the learning environment. As an
Advanced Placement student, he continued to work hard and
excel. It was always interesting to read his writing and to
watch his literary performances. He continues to visit me
during this--his senior year. I know that he has high hopes
for a college education--the American Dream--In the United
States.
I know that Artie was an immigrant--however, I did not know
of his family's troubles until recently. Apparently, they
have lived and worked In the San Joaquin valley for fourteen
years. He told me that their citizenship application was
denied, and that the entire family may be deported.
I was asked to write this letter to see if you could
intervene. I have the utmost respect for you as a politician,
as I have been an avid Democrat and a liberal and liberated
[[Page 11963]]
woman for many years. I hope that you can help this family in
their time of need. Thank you for your time and for your
consideration.
Most sincerely,
Myrl W. Johnson,
English.
____
Armenian-American
Citizens' League,
Fresno, CA, June 6, 2008.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
One Post Street,
San Francisco, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein, Last evening, 5 June, the Fresno
Chapter of the Armenian-American Citizens' League held its
monthly meeting. During the course of business, the Arthur
Mkoyan situation was brought up.
By unanimous decision, the members wished to contact you
and to request your attention to this situation.
However, when I returned home and turned on the late news,
the report was that you have already intervened in this
situation.
I am certain that our members who have also heard this news
by now are very grateful and relieved.
The purpose of this letter now is changing from request to
intervene to appreciative thanks for your action.
Our League was established in the 1930's to help immigrant
Armenians. Even though our goal is still that and we have
come a long way, we still remain vigilant.
Thank you for your action. We will be eagerly awaiting the
final disposition--hopefully, a positive one.
Please contact us if there is anything else that we can do
to help the cause.
Verily,
Ms. Penny Mirigian,
Secretary.
____
Holy Trinity Armenian
Apostolic Church,
Fresno, CA, June 5, 2008.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing on behalf of Mr.
Arthur Mkoyan. As you know Mr. Mkoyan and his family have a
deportation judgment which is due end of June 2008. Arthur
Mkoyan was two years old when his family came to this great
country seeking freedom and justice and they have worked hard
to achieve the American Dream.
Arthur will be graduating on Tuesday June 10 from Bullard
High as a Valedictorian. He is hard working, honest and we
should be proud of him because he is a great asset to our
country. Arthur has already been accepted to begin his
College education at UC Davis next Fall with Chemistry as his
major.
Dear Senator Feinstein I urge you to intervene and
introduce the Private Bill this week so that our country
doesn't loose a brilliant future scientist.
Thank you for your consideration may God bless you for your
services to our Nation. GOD BLESS AMERICA.
Prayerfully,
Fr. Vahan Gosdanian,
Pastor.
____
St. Paul Armenian Church,
Fresno, CA, May 29, 2008.
To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in support of Ruben
Gabriel Mkoyan. Mr. Mkoyan was born in Yerevan, Armenia on
December 14, 1961 and resettled in Fresno, CA in 1992 with
his family: his wife Asmik (nee Karapetian), and children
Arthur (b. October 17, 1990 in Yerevan, Armenia) and Arsen
(B. March 13, 1996 in Fresno, CA). The Mkoyan Family is very
active in the Armenian community of Fresno, and valuable
members of the St. Paul parish. They are much loved and
respected by everyone in the community.
Mr. Mkoyan has worked very hard to provide for his family
and is a model citizen with his work ethic and active
participation in the life of the community. He has served on
the PTA of St. Paul Armenian Saturday School and has
contributed his time and means in the service of others.
I am saddened to hear that after all these years his status
in the United States is in jeopardy. As his pastor and as a
person who knows the family I stand in support of Mr. Ruben
Mkoyan and his family to establish legal permanent residency
in the United States.
Sincerely,
(The Rev. Fr.) Arshen Aivazian.
____
Fresno Unified School District,
Fresno, CA, May 5, 2008.
Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senator,
One Post Street, San Francisco, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein, This letter is written on behalf of
Arsen Mkoian, a gifted sixth grade student at Kratt
elementary School in Fresno, California. Arsen and his family
are scheduled to be deported in approximately three weeks
from the United States unless a private bill is introduced in
the Senate to stop deportation. The Immigration and Customs
Enforcement case number is I A70-7S3-979. Arsen is a model
student and citizen.
Arsen has consistently been a role model for student
behavior since he began attending Kratt in kindergarten.
Attendance and parent support have been excellent. Arsen
maintains a 3.8 grade point average in his sixth grade class
this year, a 4.0 in kindergarten, first, second, third and
fifth grades, and a 3.8 in fourth grade. In addition, he will
receive Kratt's hightest honor, the ``President's Education
Award'' which is signed by President Bush and accompanied
with a commendation letter from President Bush. This rare
Kratt honor is based on stringent academic and behavior
standards students must meet for three continuous years in
fourth, fifth and sixth grades.
Socially, Arsen is well liked and respected. He receives
our monthly ``Bulldog Award'' every year which recognizes him
as a model citizen in his classroom. In fact, Arsen was
chosen to support a fellow student in need by teaming up with
him as a ``buddy'' this year in his sixth grade classroom.
Kratt's top leaders are chosen to participate in our
Traffic Patrol Club. Arsen is not only a member but was also
elected as captain of the Traffic Club this year, a tribute
to his strong character. Arsen's name also shows up on the
Math Club list almost every semester, an honor difficult to
achieve. He has been invited to apply to the magnet Computech
Middle School in Fresno because he is a standout student,
Arsen and his family have set high standards and worked
hard in our educational setting to achieve them. Senator
Feinstein, please recognize Arsen's outstanding effort and
achievement by your timely intervention of introducing the
Private Bill this week so we can keep an intellectually
gifted young person and his family in our state. We
appreciate your considering this important matter.
Sincerely,
Terri Bricker,
Kratt Elementary School Principal.
Randy Brown,
Kratt Elementary School Sixth Grade Teacher.
____
I was acquainted with Asmik Karapetian in 1995. I met her
at the Armenian Saint Paul church, where we were teaching
children Armenian. We instantly became good friends mainly
because we both had similar purposes in life for our children
to raise well educated and responsible citizens for this
country.
Later I met her husband Ruben Mkoian, also a very noble
man. I remember when my husband and I visited them the first
time to entertain us Ruben played guitar while singing along
beautifully.
I will not forget how one day Asmik called me and gave me
the good news of their second son's arrival. She was thrilled
and so were we. I know their boys, Arthur and Arsen, both
very humble and nice boys. We admired Arthur's achievements
in school. He is graduating this year with an excellent GPA.
Recently Asmik called me in tears telling me her family
received a letter that they were to be deported. My family
and I were in utter shock. Why? Asmik and Ruben are two very
hard-working people with two wonderful children whose future
is very promising. It's tragic that after residing here for
more than ten years this would happen now.
I am humbly asking you to look the circumstances over and
allow Asmik and her family to live in this country. I have
faith that you will help this family to reach their American
dreams.
Sincerely,
Anahit Bagdasarian.
____
Dear Diane Feinstein, The family of Ruben Mkoian is very
dear to me. I have known them for over 10 years and I'd like
for you to get to know them a little as well. Their entire
family, including each and every member, is very kind and
treats all with respect and always keeps their dignity. I am
proud to have had a chance to get to know them and I have
come to be very fond of how this family coped with what has
been thrown to them. My son, who grew up and attended school
with their eldest, Arthur, always stated how he admired his
qualities and good behavior. Arthur, a very intelligent young
boy, had plans preceding his acceptance, to attend the
University of California, Davis, his dream school. He worked
very hard since grade school and his acceptance alone is
proof enough that Arthur meets any standards imposed upon
him. Arthur and I would like to say every individual of their
family is outgoing, loving, kind, hardworking, and fit
amongst the most intelligent. They do not get into the bad
habits that most amongst us keep hidden. We need people like
the Mkoians in our society. They keep peace and quiet and yet
have firmly established themselves into our working field,
schools, and have the most positive influence over our
friends and family. It would be a shame to lose such people
if they were leaving on their own, and nonetheless were
kicking them out. I wish you could know them the way I have.
They have truly grown into the most admirable U.S.
inhabitants.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We hope with all
our hearts that you make the right decision.
Karin Antikyan.
____
Dear U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Our family is a great
family friend of the Mkoian
[[Page 11964]]
Family. We have known them since 1993. They are a very
friendly family. Our children grew up with their children.
Their children are amazing in school by the grades they get
Ruben and Hasmik are excellent parents. They have been next
to us on our good and bad days. We think that they deserve to
stay in the United States of America for their children and
the future of their lives. We can't imagine how hard it will
be not seeing, them, not only for us but everyone else. In
the future we will need this wonderful family for a better
community. Please keep all this in mind because they are a
great family and we wouldn't like to see them out of our
sight. We hope that you will do everything so that they will
not be deported and they will stay in the United States of
America. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Ani Idzhyan.
Margarit Dumanyan.
Rimma Markaryan.
Oganes Idzhyan.
Arshaluys Idzhyan.
Akop Idzhyan.
Gevork Idzhyan.
Harut Idjian.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 589--DESIGNATING THE WEEK BEGINNING JUNE 9, 2008, AS
``NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WEEK''
Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Ms. Snowe) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 589
Whereas the Healthcare Information and Management Systems
Society has worked collaboratively with more than 60
stakeholder organizations for more than 47 years to transform
healthcare with improved uses of information technology and
management systems;
Whereas the Center for Information Technology Leadership
estimates that the implementation of national standards for
interoperability and the exchange of health information would
save the United States resources relating to healthcare each
year;
Whereas healthcare information technology has been shown to
improve the quality and safety of the delivery of healthcare
in the United States;
Whereas healthcare information technology and management
systems have been recognized as essential tools for improving
the quality and cost efficiency of the healthcare system;
Whereas the President and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services have made a commitment to leverage the benefits of
the healthcare information technology and management systems
by establishing the Office of the National Coordinator for
Health Information Technology and the American Health
Information Community;
Whereas Congress has placed an emphasis on improving the
quality and safety of the delivery of healthcare in the
United States; and
Whereas, since 2006, organizations across the United States
have come together to support National Health Information
Technology Week to improve public awareness relating to the
potential benefits of the improved quality and cost
efficiency that the healthcare system could achieve by
implementing healthcare information technology: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning June 9, 2008, as
``National Health Information Technology Week'';
(2) recognizes the value of healthcare information
technology and management systems in transforming healthcare
for the people of the United States; and
(3) calls upon all stakeholders to promote the use of
healthcare information technology and management systems to
transform the United States healthcare system.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 590--CELEBRATING THE 233RD BIRTHDAY OF THE ARMY AND
COMMENDING THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE ARMY AS EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS WHO
LIVE BY THE ARMY VALUES OF LOYALTY, DUTY, RESPECT, SELFLESS SERVICE,
HONOR, INTEGRITY, AND PERSONAL COURAGE
Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Hatch)
submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 590
Whereas, from the first Continental Army under General
Washington at Yorktown to the beaches of Normandy, the city
streets of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan, the Army
has protected and kept the flame of democracy burning
brightly;
Whereas the citizens of the United States continue to enjoy
the benefits of freedom and democracy because the men and
women of the Army have stood through adversity, remained
steadfast in the most difficult of circumstances, and bravely
fought against the enemies of peace throughout the world;
Whereas the sacrifices of the men and women of the Army
inspire and instill great pride in all citizens of the United
States;
Whereas the active duty, National Guard, and Reserve
components of the Army protect the Nation from our enemies,
defend our vital national interests, provide support to civil
authorities in response to domestic emergencies, provide
ready forces and land force capabilities to the Combatant
Commanders in support of the National Security Strategy, and
support operations around the world, ranging from peace-time
military engagements to major combat operations;
Whereas the Army is successfully performing operations,
other than combat operations, including--
(1) supporting the defense of South Korea, Japan, and many
other friends, allies, and partners of the United States;
(2) conducting peacekeeping operations in the Sinai
Peninsula and the Balkans;
(3) conducting multinational exercises that reflect our
longstanding commitments to alliances;
(4) continuing engagements with foreign militaries to build
partnerships and preserve coalitions by training and advising
their military forces;
(5) participating, most notably by the Army National Guard,
in securing the borders of the United States and conducting
operations to counter the flow of illegal drugs;
(6) supporting civil authorities in responding to domestic
emergencies, including natural disasters and threats at home
and abroad;
(7) supporting interagency and multinational partnerships
with technical expertise, providing critical support after
natural disasters, and promoting regional stability; and
(8) supporting operations to protect against weapons of
mass destruction and block their proliferation;
Whereas the accomplishments of the Army are attributable to
the men and women of the Army who have demonstrated courage,
strength, and versatility and endured countless hardships and
made great sacrifices in performing diverse missions
worldwide;
Whereas the contributions of Army families should also be
recognized, as Army families provide the cornerstone of
strength and support for the Nation's Soldiers and display
tremendous commitment and sacrifice to the Nation by
providing critical support to their loved ones during
prolonged absences;
Whereas the Army has been continuously engaged in
persistent combat operations for more than 6 years, has
constantly and successfully adapted to ever-changing security
environments, has displayed courage, resourcefulness, and
resilience in the most grueling conditions, and, while
focused on preparing forces and building readiness for
counterinsurgency operations and providing stability,
security, and hope to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan,
has taken significant steps toward restoring balance to the
all-volunteer, battle-hardened force; and
Whereas those and countless other great accomplishments add
to the longstanding tradition of the Army and attest to the
extraordinary capability of the men and women who serve the
United States in the Army: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) celebrates the 233rd birthday of the Army;
(2) salutes the men and women of the Army and their
families;
(3) commends the men and women of the Army as exceptional
individuals who live by the Army values of loyalty, duty,
respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal
courage; and
(4) recognizes that the great men and women of the Army are
the reason it continues to stand as the best army in the
world and continues to perform extraordinary tasks while
upholding its hallowed traditions.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 88--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT
THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION'S (FDA) NEW POLICY RESTRICTING WOMEN'S
ACCESS TO MEDICATIONS CONTAINING ESTRIOL DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC
INTEREST
Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Bunning) submitted the following
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions:
S. Con. Res. 88
Whereas menopause is often a challenging transition for
millions of women that requires specialized medications and
medical treatments;
Whereas physicians prescribe a variety of pharmaceutical
treatment options to treat women experiencing the symptoms of
menopause;
Whereas individual women respond differently to different
treatment options;
[[Page 11965]]
Whereas women's physicians determine on a case-by-case
basis which treatment option is optimal for each woman;
Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen and
other bioidentical hormone treatments for patients for a
variety of reasons;
Whereas many physicians prescribe compounded estrogen
treatments that contain estriol to treat menopausal and
perimenopausal women;
Whereas estriol is one of three estrogens produced by the
human body;
Whereas estriol has been prescribed and used for decades in
the United States;
Whereas Congress has long recognized active pharmaceutical
ingredients meeting standards set by the United States
Pharmacopeia as permissible options for physician prescribing
and pharmacy compounding;
Whereas the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
announced that it will no longer permit compounding
pharmacists to prepare medications containing estriol
pursuant to a doctor's prescription;
Whereas insurers are now denying women reimbursement for
compounded medications containing estriol as a result of the
FDA's announcement; and
Whereas the FDA has acknowledged that it is unaware of any
adverse events associated with use of compounded medications
containing estriol: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that--
(1) physicians are in the best position to determine which
medications are most appropriate for their patients;
(2) the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should respect
the physician-patient relationship; and
(3) the FDA should reverse its policy that aims to
eliminate patients' access to compounded medications
containing estriol that their physicians prescribe for them,
unless the FDA holds a public comment period on the issue and
can document evidence of adverse events and other safety
issues to justify such policy.
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to examine the challenges and regional
solutions to developing transmission for renewable electricity
resources.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record may do so by sending it to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate,
Washington, DC 20510-6150, or by e-mail to Gina_weinstock@energy
.senate.gov.
For further information, please contact Leon Lowery at (202) 224-2209
or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate, on Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. BROWN. 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 Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in
room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Tuesday, June 10, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on June 10, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joshua Mayer,
an intern in Senator Bingaman's office, be granted privileges of the
floor for the remainder of today, June 10, 2008.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sara McElroy
from my staff be allowed floor privileges for the rest of the
afternoon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
AMERICAN VETERANS DISABLED FOR LIFE COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 757, H.R. 634.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 634) to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of veterans who became
disabled for life while serving in the Armed Forces of the
United States.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs, with an amendment, as follows:
(Omit the part in boldface brackets and insert the part printed in
italic.)
H.R. 634
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``American Veterans Disabled
for Life Commemorative Coin Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The Armed Forces of the United States have answered the
call and served with distinction around the world--from
hitting the beaches in World War II in the Pacific and
Europe, to the cold and difficult terrain in Korea, the
steamy jungles of Vietnam, and the desert sands of the Middle
East.
(2) All Americans should commemorate those who come home
having survived the ordeal of war, and solemnly honor those
who made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives for
their country.
(3) All Americans should honor the millions of living
disabled veterans who carry the scars of war every day, and
who have made enormous personal sacrifices defending the
principles of our democracy.
(4) In 2000, Congress authorized the construction of the
American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.
(5) The United States should pay tribute to the Nation's
living disabled veterans by minting and issuing a
commemorative silver dollar coin.
(6) The surcharge proceeds from the sale of a commemorative
coin would raise valuable funding for the construction of the
American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.
SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.
(a) $1 Silver Coins.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue not more than 350,000 $1 coins in
commemoration of disabled American veterans, each of which
shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of sections 5134 and
5136 of title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under
this Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.
(a) Design Requirements.--
[(1) In General.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of the design selected by the
Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation for the American
Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial.]
(1) Design.--The design of the coins minted under this Act
shall be emblematic of the service of our disabled veterans
who, having survived the ordeal of war, made enormous
personal sacrifices defending the principles of our
democracy.
(2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act, there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
[[Page 11966]]
(B) an inscription of the year ``2010''; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary, after consultation with the
Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation and the
Commission of Fine Arts; and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.
SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.
(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facility.--
(1) In general.--Only 1 facility of the United States Mint
may be used to strike any particular quality of the coins
minted under this Act.
(2) Use of the united states mint at west point, new
york.--It is the sense of the Congress that the coins minted
under this Act should be struck at the United States Mint at
West Point, New York, to the greatest extent possible.
(c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins
under this Act only during the calendar year beginning on
January 1, 2010.
SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.
(a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be
sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coins;
(2) the surcharge provided in section 7 with respect to
such coins; and
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders
for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of
such coins.
(2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders
under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
SEC. 7. SURCHARGES.
(a) In General.--All sales of coins issued under this Act
shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
(b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31,
United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary
from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be paid to
the Disabled Veterans' LIFE Memorial Foundation for the
purpose of establishing an endowment to support the
construction of American Veterans' Disabled for Life Memorial
in Washington, DC.
(c) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall have the right to examine such books, records,
documents, and other data of the Disabled Veterans' LIFE
Memorial Foundation as may be related to the expenditures of
amounts paid under subsection (b).
(d) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), no
surcharge may be included with respect to the issuance under
this Act of any coin during a calendar year if, as of the
time of such issuance, the issuance of such coin would result
in the number of commemorative coin programs issued during
such year to exceed the annual 2 commemorative coin program
issuance limitation under section 5112(m)(1) of title 31,
United States Code (as in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act). The Secretary of the Treasury may issue
guidance to carry out this subsection.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time
and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no
intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the
bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The committee amendment was agreed to.
The bill (H.R. 634), as amended, was ordered to be read a third time,
was read the third time, and passed.
____________________
LOCAL PREPAREDNESS ACQUISITION ACT
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 768, H.R. 3179.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3179) to amend title 40, United States Code,
to authorize the use of Federal supply schedules for the
acquisition of law enforcement, security, and certain other
related items by State and local governments.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read the third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements
related to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 3179) was ordered to be read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed.
____________________
NATIONAL HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WEEK
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 589, which was
submitted earlier today by Senator Stabenow of Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 589) designating the week beginning
June 9, 2008, as ``National Health Information Technology
Week.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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 that any
statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 589) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 589
Whereas the Healthcare Information and Management Systems
Society has worked collaboratively with more than 60
stakeholder organizations for more than 47 years to transform
healthcare with improved uses of information technology and
management systems;
Whereas the Center for Information Technology Leadership
estimates that the implementation of national standards for
interoperability and the exchange of health information would
save the United States resources relating to healthcare each
year;
Whereas healthcare information technology has been shown to
improve the quality and safety of the delivery of healthcare
in the United States;
Whereas healthcare information technology and management
systems have been recognized as essential tools for improving
the quality and cost efficiency of the healthcare system;
Whereas the President and the Secretary of Health and Human
Services have made a commitment to leverage the benefits of
the healthcare information technology and management systems
by establishing the Office of the National Coordinator for
Health Information Technology and the American Health
Information Community;
Whereas Congress has placed an emphasis on improving the
quality and safety of the delivery of healthcare in the
United States; and
Whereas, since 2006, organizations across the United States
have come together to support National Health Information
Technology Week to improve public awareness relating to the
potential benefits of the improved quality and cost
efficiency that the healthcare system could achieve by
implementing healthcare information technology: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week beginning June 9, 2008, as
``National Health Information Technology Week'';
(2) recognizes the value of healthcare information
technology and management systems in transforming healthcare
for the people of the United States; and
(3) calls upon all stakeholders to promote the use of
healthcare information technology and management systems to
transform the United States healthcare system.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 233RD BIRTHDAY OF THE ARMY
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 590, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 590) celebrating the 233rd birthday
of the Army and commending the men and women of the Army as
exceptional individuals who live by the Army values of
loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity,
and personal courage.
[[Page 11967]]
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr President, today Senator Inhofe and I celebrate the
Army's 233rd birthday. For over two centuries, the Army has fought to
preserve the principles of democracy not only here in the United States
but around the world.
Our Nation's Army soldiers have served this Nation with honesty,
courage, and dignity, and it is my privilege to take this opportunity
to commemorate its birth. Both in times of peace, and in times of war,
the U.S. Army has answered the call of duty and responded to the
challenge of defending our Nation. All of our Army units, Active, Guard
and Reserve, share the heritage of the first Continental Army which
fought so valiantly to ensure the birth of a nation founded on the
ideals of justice and freedom.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, the commitment and duty of the Army
soldiers who have risked their lives to preserve our freedom have left
an indelible mark on this Nation. During the Army's 233-year history,
tens of thousands of these brave men and women have sacrificed their
lives on distant battlefields to keep our Nation safe. I salute them
for their service to this country.
Mr. AKAKA. My colleague Senator Inhofe and I also want to pay tribute
to the families of those soldiers who risk their lives for our Nation.
Too often the important role that families play goes unacknowledged but
their faith and devotion are vital to the Army's success. The families
of our soldiers have my deepest appreciation for the sacrifices they
make and for the support they give our troops.
Mr. INHOFE. As this Nation continues to fight in the global war on
terror, the Army has been key to providing the capabilities it needs to
persist in its struggle for liberty and democracy. Through the efforts
of the U.S. Armys the world has been made a more secure, prosperous,
and better place for all of mankind. The courage and dedication of
these soldiers are an inspiration to us all, and may the rest of us
endeavor to be ``Army strong'' in our own lives.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, 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. 590) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 590
Whereas, from the first Continental Army under General
Washington at Yorktown to the beaches of Normandy, the city
streets of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan, the Army
has protected and kept the flame of democracy burning
brightly;
Whereas the citizens of the United States continue to enjoy
the benefits of freedom and democracy because the men and
women of the Army have stood through adversity, remained
steadfast in the most difficult of circumstances, and bravely
fought against the enemies of peace throughout the world;
Whereas the sacrifices of the men and women of the Army
inspire and instill great pride in all citizens of the United
States;
Whereas the active duty, National Guard, and Reserve
components of the Army protect the Nation from our enemies,
defend our vital national interests, provide support to civil
authorities in response to domestic emergencies, provide
ready forces and land force capabilities to the Combatant
Commanders in support of the National Security Strategy, and
support operations around the world, ranging from peace-time
military engagements to major combat operations;
Whereas the Army is successfully performing operations,
other than combat operations, including--
(1) supporting the defense of South Korea, Japan, and many
other friends, allies, and partners of the United States;
(2) conducting peacekeeping operations in the Sinai
Peninsula and the Balkans;
(3) conducting multinational exercises that reflect our
longstanding commitments to alliances;
(4) continuing engagements with foreign militaries to build
partnerships and preserve coalitions by training and advising
their military forces;
(5) participating, most notably by the Army National Guard,
in securing the borders of the United States and conducting
operations to counter the flow of illegal drugs;
(6) supporting civil authorities in responding to domestic
emergencies, including natural disasters and threats at home
and abroad;
(7) supporting interagency and multinational partnerships
with technical expertise, providing critical support after
natural disasters, and promoting regional stability; and
(8) supporting operations to protect against weapons of
mass destruction and block their proliferation;
Whereas the accomplishments of the Army are attributable to
the men and women of the Army who have demonstrated courage,
strength, and versatility and endured countless hardships and
made great sacrifices in performing diverse missions
worldwide;
Whereas the contributions of Army families should also be
recognized, as Army families provide the cornerstone of
strength and support for the Nation's Soldiers and display
tremendous commitment and sacrifice to the Nation by
providing critical support to their loved ones during
prolonged absences;
Whereas the Army has been continuously engaged in
persistent combat operations for more than 6 years, has
constantly and successfully adapted to ever-changing security
environments, has displayed courage, resourcefulness, and
resilience in the most grueling conditions, and, while
focused on preparing forces and building readiness for
counterinsurgency operations and providing stability,
security, and hope to the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan,
has taken significant steps toward restoring balance to the
all-volunteer, battle-hardened force; and
Whereas those and countless other great accomplishments add
to the longstanding tradition of the Army and attest to the
extraordinary capability of the men and women who serve the
United States in the Army: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) celebrates the 233rd birthday of the Army;
(2) salutes the men and women of the Army and their
families;
(3) commends the men and women of the Army as exceptional
individuals who live by the Army values of loyalty, duty,
respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal
courage; and
(4) recognizes that the great men and women of the Army are
the reason it continues to stand as the best army in the
world and continues to perform extraordinary tasks while
upholding its hallowed traditions.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 629, the
nomination of Michael E. Leiter to be Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National
Intelligence; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, with no other motions in order; that
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that any
statements relating to the nomination be printed in the Record, and
that the Senate then return to legislative session, without further
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nomination considered and confirmed is as follows:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Michael E. Leiter, of the District of Columbia, to be
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Office of
the Director of National Intelligence.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
return to legislative session.
____________________
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY,
JUNE 11, 2008
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m.
tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11; 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 proceed to a period for the transaction of
morning business for up to 1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled
between the two leaders or
[[Page 11968]]
their designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the
Republicans controlling the final half. I further ask unanimous consent
that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of the
motion to proceed to S. 3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act, and that
the first 4 hours be equally divided between the two leaders or their
designees and controlled in 30-minute blocks in an alternating fashion,
with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans
controlling the next 30 minutes; and that following the controlled
block of time, Senators be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes
each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. BROWN. 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 7:33 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
FREDERICK S. CELEC, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT TO THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR NUCLEAR AND CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
DEFENSE PROGRAMS, VICE DALE KLEIN, RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
JOHN MELVIN JONES, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF COUNSELOR, TO BE AMBASSADOR
EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA TO THE CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA.
AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
JOHN W. LESLIE, JR., OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION FOR
A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 22, 2013. (REAPPOINTMENT)
JOHN O. AGWUNOBI, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING FEBRUARY 9, 2014, VICE EPHRAIM BATAMBUZE, TERM
EXPIRED.
JULIUS E. COLES, OF GEORGIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 22, 2011, VICE WILLIE GRACE CAMPBELL, TERM
EXPIRED.
MORGAN W. DAVIS, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF DIRECTORS OF THE AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING NOVEMBER 13, 2013, VICE EDWARD BREHM, TERM EXPIRED.
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
MARYLYN ANDREA HOWE, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE A MEMBER OF
THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING
SEPTEMBER 17, 2011. (REAPPOINTMENT)
LONNIE C. MOORE, OF KANSAS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON DISABILITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 17, 2011.
(REAPPOINTMENT)
HEATHER MCCALLUM, OF GEORGIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY FOR A TERM EXPIRING SEPTEMBER
17, 2011, VICE CYNTHIA ALLEN WAINSCOTT, TERM EXPIRING.
CHRISTINA ALVARADO SHANAHAN, OF NORTH CAROLINA, TO BE A
MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY FOR A TERM
EXPIRING SEPTEMBER 17, 2011, VICE PATRICIA POUND, TERM
EXPIRED.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate June 10, 2008:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
MICHAEL E. LEITER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER, OFFICE OF
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE.
THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE NOMINEE'S
COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY
BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
THE JUDICIARY
MARK S. DAVIS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.
DAVID GREGORY KAYS, OF MISSOURI, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., OF MISSOURI, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
[[Page 11969]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The House met at 9 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. McNulty).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
June 10, 2008.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Michael R. McNulty to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
MORNING-HOUR DEBATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
January 4, 2007, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists
submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each
party limited to 25 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes, but
in no event shall debate continue beyond 9:50 a.m.
____________________
GAS PRICE RELIEF FOR CONSUMERS ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) for 5 minutes.
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, last month, I had the opportunity and the
pleasure to work with the bipartisan majority of 221 Democrats and 103
Republicans, including the entire Wisconsin delegation, to pass the Gas
Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008. This will in time decrease gas
prices for everyone and will make certain that no one is able to
manipulate oil prices and to control the free markets.
One year ago, crude oil was selling for $65 a barrel, and all of us
were paying around $3 per gallon at the pump. We thought things were
bad then. The cost per barrel for crude oil has more than doubled since
last year while, this week, we are forced to pay in northeast Wisconsin
over $4 per gallon. Yet this is taking place during a recession when
demand for oil is down. This is not the way of the free marketplace.
Like you, I was more than a little surprised to learn that, during
this past January of 2008, we had so much oil right here in the United
States that American oil companies were exporting 335,000 barrels of
diesel per day to Europe and to Mexico. Enough is enough.
The Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act that we passed would allow us
to attack gas price manipulation, something we do not currently have
the authority to do. It would authorize as well an antitrust task force
within the Department of Justice to begin to root out any
anticompetitive activities and price manipulation in the speculative
and volatile futures markets. For the first time, it would instruct the
Federal Government to evaluate the damaging effects of past oil company
mergers and acquisitions and these effects that they have had on our
families and on small businesses alike.
This is the first step in beginning to reestablish a free and open
marketplace in the world's oil delivery, something that Teddy Roosevelt
attempted in the early 1900s.
My friends, we are today no further advanced in establishing a free
and open marketplace than we were in 1910, but all of us who live in
Wisconsin are struggling to fill our tanks today, and we need relief as
fast as possible, and that's why I and an overwhelming number of my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle passed this act to begin to cut
gas prices immediately, realizing it will require some time to reverse
the failed energy policies of the recent past. If studies show we don't
have enough oil refineries, then let's ask the question: Is it time
that we build refineries on each side of the Rocky Mountains?
Skyrocketing gasoline prices are crippling family budgets and profits
for small businesses everywhere in the country. Our long-term energy
solutions, however, must include creating a new national energy policy,
implementing provisions like those I fought to include in the new farm
bill that will promote alternative sources of energy, leaving behind,
once and for all, all of the losing ideas that we have had, namely, the
drill-and-burn and drill-and-burn philosophy and policy of the Bush and
Cheney administration. We cannot drill and burn our way out of this
energy crisis.
Although there are many causes for today's record-high gas prices, we
should not be afraid to take on specific steps today to ensure that
prices for middle class families and small businesses come down. That
is why we have given the Department of Justice these new tools to, in
effect, put a cop back on the beat, making certain that those who are
profiting from our pain at the pump will be held accountable.
With regard to the facts of the situation, let's look at some of the
facts here, at the United States' oil facts. We, the people, have
leased 42 million acres to oil companies, and of the 42 million acres,
they are using 12 million. What else is going on?
Since the year 1980, we have lost over 200 refineries, decreasing our
capability to produce more oil and diesel when we require it. What else
is going on?
The outer banks. Everyone is talking about leasing the outer banks,
the Outer Continental Shelf. Well, 82 percent of that property has
already been leased, and they're not drilling. Some people have asked:
Why aren't we drilling in ANWR? By drilling in ANWR, what are we going
to get?
This is an old idea. If we took all of the oil out of ANWR, it would
drop, economists say, the cost at the pump by one to two pennies per
gallon, and that would take place 10 or 20 years from now. Furthermore,
there is no guarantee whatsoever that the companies bringing the oil
out of ANWR would deliver it to the United States citizens. It may go
to Japan or to Europe or to the highest bidder. So ANWR and drilling,
drilling and burning is not the solution.
What is going on in our marketplace? Recent investigations and
testimony here in the House and in the Senate have shown that there is
a concentration where pension funds are now beginning to invest more
and more since the year 2000 into our commodities futures market. So it
is now time to ask the question: Isn't it appropriate that we ask you,
if you're buying oil, to take possession of what you buy?
____________________
FRANKLIN L. ``JAKE'' FLAKE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) for 2 minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, flags at the State Capitol in Arizona are
flying at half-staff this week to honor the life of Jake Flake.
Jake leaves behind a legacy of service from school boards to
irrigation districts to hospital governing boards to the Boy Scouts of
America to the Farm Credit Association to countless other
organizations. You name it; Jake Flake ran it; raised money for it;
rescued it or improved it.
But it was in Arizona's State legislature that he became best known
and loved across the State, particularly
[[Page 11970]]
during his term as Speaker of the House. One of Arizona's last genuine
cowboy legislators, his perspective, his insight and his counsel is
simply irreplaceable.
To his wife, Mary Louise, Jake was a loving husband. To his 13
children, he was a devoted father. To his 55 grandchildren, he was an
adoring grandfather. To his church, he was a faithful servant. To his
community, he was a loyal advocate. To his beloved State of Arizona, he
was a statesman.
To this lowly Congressman, he was a caring uncle and mentor, and I
will miss him dearly.
____________________
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until 10 a.m. today.
Accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 10 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until 10 a.m.
____________________
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California) at 10 a.m.
____________________
PRAYER
The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
Lord God, Your provident love is revealed today as it was revealed in
the scriptures and in the early days of this Nation's history. Lord,
after Your servant Moses had died, You spoke again to Your people and
Joshua, the son of Nun. You said, ``Prepare now to cross the Jordan
with all the people. Enter the land I stretch out before you. No one
can stand against you as long as you live in My presence. I will be
with you as I was with Moses. I will not leave you nor will I forsake
you.''
In this millennium, we as a Nation need to cross over some turbulent
waters and enter into a new terrain. Lord, we must face a new
environment with a need for resourceful energy as we seek economic
security and global peace.
Give us Your confidence as we once again hear Your words of promise:
Be firm and steadfast so that you may lead this people to the secure
and prosperous land which I promised to your ancestors. I will be with
you as I was with Moses. I will not leave you nor will I forsake you,
now or forever. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. HALL of New York 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.
____________________
DOMESTIC OIL DRILLING
(Mr. HALL of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, over the weekend, gas reached
the $4 national average for the first time in our Nation's history. The
majority in Congress has worked to combat these prices by advancing new
energy solutions and efforts to protect consumers. The standard refrain
from the oil companies and their allies is, ``We need to drill for more
oil here at home.'' I would ask them, ``Who is stopping you?''
The oil company myth is that we need to open up the Arctic refuge and
give the oil company a free hand to go wherever and whenever they want
to chase oil. The reality, however, is that about 75 percent of the oil
in the United States is on land that is already open for production,
but less than one-third of that land is actually being used by the oil
companies.
They are literally sitting on 10,000 permits and millions of acres of
leased land that would let them start pulling more oil out of the
ground here at home. So I say to the oil company advocates, start
drilling for more domestic supply. Start drilling on the lands that are
already open, and stop posturing while American drivers are in pain at
the pump.
____________________
REDUCE THE PRICE AT THE PUMP
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, you know that the price at the pump is
what everyone is talking about. And in my district in Tennessee, moms
are now spending over $100 more to fill up the tanks than they were
when the Democrats took the gavel in both the House and the Senate. It
costs over $100 a month more to fill up the tank of an average minivan.
We have seen the price of a gallon of gas go from $2.26 to $4 a gallon.
Madam Speaker, there is a reason for this. And we on the Republican
side have solutions for this problem. It is time to waive the gas tax.
It is time to waive the ethanol mandates. It is time to waive the
requirements for boutique fuels. And it is time for Americans to
explore for American energy on American soil.
There is a way to address this. There are bills that are filed. There
is action that can be taken. I encourage my Democrat colleagues,
encourage your leadership to rise to the challenge, reduce the price at
the pump.
____________________
BIG OIL NEEDS TO DRILL WHERE THEY HOLD LEASES
(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, President Bush and congressional
Republicans continue to blame today's record gas prices on our refusal
to open more land up for drilling. They claim that if we allowed big
oil to drill more, gas prices would fall. What Republicans neglect to
say is that the number of drilling permits increased dramatically over
the last 5 years from 3,800 permits in 2002 to 7,500 last year.
That's right. Big oil is actually getting access to more land to
drill, but is doing nothing to bring down the price of gas. Big oil has
access to millions of acres of Federal land. But for some reason, they
have yet to do any drilling. According to a new Natural Resources
Committee report, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68
million acres of Federal land that they are not currently drilling. If
big oil really wants to drill more, why aren't they drilling?
Madam Speaker, Washington Republicans are wrong again to rely on big
oil to bring down the prices at the pump. After all, while American
consumers battle these record prices, big oil is laughing all the way
to the bank.
____________________
THE CURE FOR PUMP PANIC
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, with all the gloom, doom and despair about
the high gasoline prices, there is a remedy to this pessimistic pump
panic. Before we start passing out bicycles to the multitudes or start
going to Dr. Phil for therapy, we can and should obtain more crude oil
here in America. Crude oil will still be the driving energy of this
Nation for the foreseeable future until we find some alternative. And
we don't need to line the pockets of OPEC and Third World dictators by
begging them for more crude. We already give them $425 million a day!
The U.S. Geological Survey has released a report that says the
``sweet
[[Page 11971]]
crude'' oil find in the Williston-Bakken Basin is larger than first
believed. It is enormous. According to the report, it is over 500
billion barrels, and it is located in the Dakotas. It is 15 times
larger than the oil in the Alaskan North Slope.
America needs to take care of America. We need to remove the silly
restrictions that prohibit drilling. We need to drill in the Badlands
of the Dakotas; remove the offshore drilling ban; drill in Alaska; and
we can cure this pump panic disease.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
EXPRESSING SYMPATHY FOR THE FLOOD AND TORNADO VICTIMS IN IOWA
(Mr. LOEBSACK asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LOEBSACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere
sympathy for residents in my district and around Iowa who are currently
experiencing severe flooding at record setting levels.
Just this weekend I went to two neighborhoods to help sandbag and
protect homes. I spoke with a man who pointed to his home and said,
``This is the only thing I have.'' It was a very emotional setting. I
was touched by the intensity and good spirits of many of the residents
and volunteers despite the circumstances, and I commend them for their
perseverance.
The Governor of Iowa has already issued emergency proclamations for
many of Iowa's counties, and four counties have been declared
Presidential disaster areas. I understand that the National Guard has
been activated to assist in the flood control efforts. I am grateful
for their assistance. I continue to stand ready to help my fellow
Iowans in any way possible.
____________________
SOLUTIONS EXIST FOR HIGH GAS PRICES
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I feel sympathy for the folks paying
these high gas prices. Here is a problem: On average, $3.98, take in
climate change 50 cents and we'll be paying $4.48 a gallon.
Here is the solution: Outer Continental Shelf, which is off-limits by
appropriation bills; moving coal-to-liquid technology, which has been
blocked here on motions to recommit; expanding renewable fuels, which
has been helpful, but still is not the panacea.
The New York Times, which is not one of our best supporters, says the
counties were motorists spend the highest percentage of their income on
gasoline tend to be poor, rural areas, which is what I represent. That
is why I am on the floor monthly now talking about gas reaching $4 a
gallon, refinery expansion delayed because of environmental attacks,
the clean gas, $4 increase in price of natural gas bills.
Our consuming public cannot stand these high prices any more. Our
manufacturing base cannot. We have to bring on more supply.
____________________
THE PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
(Ms. SPEIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, 45 years ago today, President Kennedy
signed a law to end what he called the ``unconscionable practice of
paying female workers less wages than male workers for the same job.''
When President Kennedy signed the law, women earned 60 cents for
every dollar earned by a man. In 2006, the woman's share is 77 cents.
While we have made some progress in 45 years, it is scant at best.
Since 1963 the ratio has narrowed by less than one-half cent per year.
At this rate, my 13-year-old daughter will be close to retirement by
the time President Kennedy's order is realized.
That is why I am cosponsoring H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act,
which adds teeth to previous laws.
Equal pay for equal work is as American as a principle can be. This
is not about men versus women, but basic fairness. And its
ramifications affect everyone. Paying women less hurts men who aren't
hired because hiring a woman is cheaper. It hurts families by devaluing
the work of women and mothers who are already paying out of pocket for
child care so they can pursue a career. In short, it hurts all of
America, and it must end right here, right now.
____________________
YOU CAN'T GET OIL FROM A DRY HOLE
(Mr. WESTMORELAND asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, more smoke and mirrors that we are
hearing this morning from the majority party about, oh, there is plenty
of land to drill in, the big oil companies just aren't drilling. Let me
just straighten that out just a little bit. Ninety-seven percent of the
Federal offshore drilling sites are off-limits. Ninety-four percent of
the federally owned onshore areas are off-limits. Fifty-two percent of
the area that oil companies drilled in between 2002 and 2007 were dry
holes. We need to allow these oil companies to drill in areas where
there actually is oil.
I don't know the economics that the majority party has, but if there
is no oil, why would you drill there? That does not make sense. If the
government would sell companies leases that have oil in them instead of
selling them places that turn out to be dry holes, then we would have
more oil produced in this country. We imported over 600 million gallons
of gasoline last year. We need to add to our refinery capabilities,
also.
____________________
{time} 1015
ANOTHER MONTH OF JOB LOSSES: CONGRESS SHOULD EXTEND UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE
(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, every month this year our economy has
shed more jobs than it has produced. Last month was no exception;
49,000 jobs were lost nationwide and unemployment rose from 5 percent
in April to 5.5 percent in May. That is the largest 1 month increase in
20 years.
As job losses continue on a monthly basis, it is becoming
increasingly difficult for the unemployed to find jobs, and it is
expected to get even worse. That is why last month this Congress passed
legislation to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks.
Today, more than 1 million people have exhausted all of their
benefits. Washington should provide these workers some additional
relief as they continue to pursue a job through these rough times. Yet
President Bush and congressional Republicans oppose the unemployment
insurance extension, even though they supported a similar extension in
2002 when economic conditions were not nearly as hard as they are
today.
Madam Speaker, the May jobs report should serve as a wake-up call to
President Bush and congressional Republicans to support our efforts to
extend unemployment insurance.
____________________
URGING THE PRESIDENT TO DECLARE AN EXPEDITED MAJOR DISASTER AREA IN THE
STATE OF INDIANA
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, across Indiana, Hoosiers are picking up the
pieces from a week of extraordinary weather. My own hometown of
Columbus is in the midst of a cleanup of the worst flooding since the
Great Flood of 1913, and I come to the floor today to urge the
President of the United States to take immediate action and declare an
expedited major disaster area in the
[[Page 11972]]
State of Indiana as a result of these severe storms, tornadoes and
torrential downpour.
Following the harsh impact of tornadoes 1 week ago today, on Saturday
parts of my district experienced approximately 10 inches of rain in a
matter of hours. This is more rainfall than Hoosiers typically see in 2
months during this time of year, and the results have been
catastrophic.
I commend the President for his action on Sunday evening speeding
relief to community governments, but this government must act and act
now to bring relief to Hoosier families, small businesses and family
farms. We need additional declarations like those requested by Governor
Mitch Daniels of the President, support from FEMA and the Department of
Agriculture, and we need it now.
Hoosier families and communities are hurting, and they deserve to
know that help is on the way. I urge this administration and all of my
colleagues to focus their attention on this urgent Midwestern need for
emergency relief.
____________________
CONGRATULATING SHAWN JOHNSON: 2007 WORLD GYMNASTIC CHAMPION; 2008
NATIONAL CHAMPION
(Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, last November I stood here to
congratulate a native of Iowa, a young woman from our district who has
demonstrated amazing discipline and spirit of American ambition. In
September of 2007, Shawn Johnson won the 2007 World Artistic Gymnastic
Championship. She is one of four American women to hold this esteemed
title.
Today, I congratulate Shawn on her most recent win. On Saturday, June
7, Shawn successfully defended her title as the National Champion in
women's gymnastics. Next weekend she will compete in Philadelphia for a
spot on the elite six-member U.S. Women's Olympic Gymnastic Team.
Shawn not only exudes the hard work necessary to achieve her dreams,
but also the character of a natural role model. Even with all her gold
medals and new-found fame, Shawn continues to compete with humble pride
and gratitude.
I thank Shawn for all of the wonderful things she has done around the
State of Iowa and the Nation. Since winning the world championship, she
has used her fame to bring awareness to breast cancer and other cancers
that affect women.
Once again, Shawn, congratulations on winning the National
Championship again, and good luck in Philadelphia.
____________________
REPUBLICANS ARE READY TO ACT ON ENERGY NEEDS
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, my constituents and Americans
are asking, where is the bill? When will House Democrats bring forward
a real plan for families being hammered by record gas prices?
Today, the majority will spend hours considering no less than 10
nonbinding resolutions. Yet this Democrat Congress will do nothing,
nothing, about outrageous energy prices. We fill the day with
recognitions and commemorations, but there is no urgency for struggling
Americans.
It is shameful that with energy prices rising 70 percent on their
watch, House Democrats remain stubbornly opposed to offering any ideas
to increase supply and lower gas prices. All we see from this majority
is brazen neglect.
Republicans, on the other hand, have brought forward an energy action
plan. We are ready to act. We are ready to increase American-made
energy resources. We are ready to provide a broad mix of energy
options. We are ready to streamline regulations allowing for increasing
refining capacity. We are ready to help.
Madam Speaker, we are ready. Americans are begging to know, when will
this Democrat majority be?
____________________
THE TROUBLED STATE OF OUR WORLD'S OCEANS
(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the troubled
state of our world's oceans. Last month, I attended an ocean science
summit in Monterey, California. Also there were State and Federal
policymakers and scientists concerned about our oceans and the lack of
attention our Federal Government has given them.
This year's summit marked the 10-year anniversary of the Year of the
Ocean and the oceans conference in Monterey attended by President
Clinton and Vice President Gore. In the intervening 10 years, the
Federal Government has done little to address the oceans' growing
problems, ranging from overfishing to pollution to coastal development
and global warming. California and Massachusetts have had to step into
the breach, but problems as big as our oceans can't be addressed by a
few States.
Fortunately, there is a solution. Oceans 21, introduced by
Representative Farr and moving through the Natural Resources Committee
now, establishes a national oceans policy and a framework for national
and regional management of our shared ocean resources.
I strongly urge my colleagues to sponsor Oceans 21. Join us, and help
provide stewardship for this vast resource and protect it for future
generations.
____________________
REMEMBERING THE HEROES OF WORLD WAR II
(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, 64 years ago this
week, my father and approximately 2 million of his fellow soldiers from
the United States, Great Britain, and Canada were moving into the area
of France, which began the liberation of Europe. Sixty-four years ago
they sacrificed in ways almost unimaginable for us. Had they not done
that, had they not succeeded, we would not enjoy the freedoms we have
today.
Yet it was little remarked nor remembered on the pages of our
newspapers across our country and on our television sets. And the fact
of the matter is these brave, gentle warriors are dying at over 1,000 a
day. We soon will not have the opportunity to thank them for the
sacrifices they made.
So today as we deal with these problems that face us, let us remember
that America has always been a can-do country. We have never shirked
from challenges. We have figured out how to do it. And remember in the
words of those people in that movie not too long ago, to ask ourselves
what our fathers asked themselves; are we worthy? Did we lead a good
life? Did we do what we had to do?
____________________
DEMOCRATS ARE FIGHTING TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF VETERANS
(Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Madam Speaker, while the Iraq war has stretched
our military thin and our troops continue to struggle with multiple
deployments, House Democrats are fighting to improve the lives of
soldiers when they return home.
Last month we passed a new and improved GI Bill that restores the
promise of a full 4-year college scholarship. The original GI Bill
sparked economic growth and expansion in America after World War II.
This new bill will be an integral part of rebuilding our failing
economy. It will also make military service more attractive and improve
the quality of recruits as we work to strengthen our military. The new
GI Bill goes further than current law, which only covers a small
portion of public and private college education.
[[Page 11973]]
Madam Speaker, the education of our Nation's veterans should be
considered a cost of the war which they rightfully have earned after
completing their military service.
Madam Speaker, the U.S. has never gone wrong when it properly invests
in education and rewards our veterans. I would only hope that President
Bush would reconsider his opposition to the new GI Bill. It is the
right thing to do for both our military and our economy.
____________________
DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY NEEDS NEW ENERGY POLICY NOW
(Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, with high gas prices
soaring, moms and dads across East Tennessee and across America are
struggling to put a budget together at the kitchen table. They are
worried how they are going to pay for their health care, how they are
going to buy enough gas to get their kids to school, how they are going
to pay for their children's education.
Families and small businesses across America are hurting. Earl
Humphreys, for example, in Bristol, Tennessee, owns Lawn Boyz Lawn Care
Service. He has told me he may have to go out of business.
It is time for solutions, time for no more excuses. High gas prices
are not only an economic security issue, they are a national security
issue. We are too dependent on foreign countries, countries that hate
us and hate our freedoms and, quite frankly, hate our religion.
We need an energy policy now. I call on the Democrat majority to
offer legislation that will provide for lower gas prices, better
economic security, better national security, and I ask them to do it
now. We need to use American energy. We need solutions.
____________________
REPUBLICAN LEADERS OPPOSE EFFORTS TO LOWER RECORD HIGH GAS PRICES AT
THE PUMP
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, for 7 years now, Washington Republicans
have allowed Big Oil to run our Nation's energy policy. From the very
first days of this administration, Vice President Cheney was meeting in
secret with energy executives to develop its energy proposal. Today we
see the results of that secret policy that was approved by a rubber-
stamp Republican Congress. When President Bush took office, the average
price of gas was $1.47. Today, it has more than doubled to an average
hovering around $4.
Since taking control of Congress last year, Democrats have rejected
the failed Republican policies that are responsible for these record
high prices. We are working to lower prices by cracking down on price
gouging, holding OPEC accountable for price fixing, repealing subsidies
for profit-rich oil companies, and instead investing in renewable
energy.
Each of these efforts have received some partisan support, but the
Republican leadership of this House and the President continue to
oppose our efforts.
____________________
RESPONSIBLE ENERGY POLICY NEEDED
(Mr. BROUN of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today America is drilling for
ice on Mars, yet we cannot drill for oil in America. We have billions
of gallons of crude oil in America that we can't even tap into because
of a failed policy by the majority. We can't drill for oil. Just
yesterday, I filled up my car and paid $3.99.9 a gallon.
It is crazy that we can't drill for oil. We have to have responsible
energy policy that gives us more supply. It is not about wind or
electricity or taxing oil. The Democrats want to put a 50 cents a
gallon tax on every gallon of diesel and gasoline in America. That is
inane. That is not energy policy.
We have to drill for oil now. We have to streamline the permitting
process for refineries. We have to supply more gas to people. It is a
national security policy, it is an economic policy that we cannot
continue that the majority has given us today. We need a responsible
energy policy.
____________________
DEMOCRATS TAKE ACTION ON RECORD HIGH GAS PRICES AT THE PUMP
(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, as the price of gas continues
to hit record highs almost every day, House Democrats continue to work
on passing legislation that creates a cleaner and smarter energy policy
that will provide consumers some real relief.
This year, the House has passed nine bills, many of which the
President has vetoed, that should help lower prices at the pump.
Last month we passed a final farm bill that makes an historic
investment in expanding biofuel production, largely from non-food crops
such as cornstalks, wood chips and switchgrass. The bill also provides
support to farmers growing energy crops and entrepreneurs building
refineries to convert biomass into fuel. Without biofuels, gasoline
prices would be about 50 cents higher per gallon than they are right
now.
The farm bill should be going to the President's desk any day now,
but he plans to veto it. Fortunately, we should have enough bipartisan
support to override that veto when the bill comes back to Congress.
Madam Speaker, investing in biofuels is critical to our energy
future. The farm bill is just one more example of how this Democratic
Congress is working to lower prices at the pump.
____________________
{time} 1030
INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF OIL AT HOME
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, President Bush recently went to Saudi
Arabia to ask the gulf kingdom to increase its oil production to help
bring down gas prices. Instead of flying all the way to the Middle
East, perhaps he should have made the short trip down Pennsylvania
Avenue for a visit with Congress to ask the lawmakers here to increase
the supply of oil right here at home.
According to the Department of Interior, 86 billion barrels of oil
are available in the Outer Continental Shelf, added to the 53 billion
barrels available in land. According to the Bureau of Land Management,
we have 139 billion barrels of oil right here at home. That's more than
the oil-rich countries like Kuwait, Venezuela and Russia have. Last
year we imported over 6 billion gallons of refined gasoline into the
United States.
One might ask, considering these numbers, why aren't we attempting to
access more of our fuel right here at home? The Democrat leaders have a
roadblock to every bill to drill for oil, natural gas, shale oil, right
here in the U.S.
How long is it going to take them to learn?
____________________
AMERICAN FAMILIES ARE PAYING THE PRICE
(Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, today American families are paying the
price for 7 years of failed economic policies by this administration.
This year alone, our economy has lost more than 300,000 jobs. It's
important to remember that in order to just keep up with the population
growth, our economy must create at least 150,000 jobs per month.
[[Page 11974]]
These statistics are devastating to millions of unemployed Americans
who are increasingly competing against each other for the very few jobs
that have become available. Yet President Bush continues to sit on the
sidelines hoping that the economic situation will correct itself
without additional governmental intervention.
The Democratic House believes the government must act, and it must
act now. That's why we passed legislation last month that would extend
unemployment insurance to workers who have exhausted their benefits. We
also plan to move a second economic stimulus package that should help
create jobs. I hope both President Bush and congressional Republicans
would finally realize that this is the right thing to do.
____________________
DEMOCRATS HELP REBUILD THE ECONOMY
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Madam Speaker, with so many Americans fearing the loss of
their jobs and their homes and worrying about the rising cost of basic
needs like food and gas, it is clear that Washington must act.
The House had led the way in working to jump-start the economic
recovery by putting hundreds of dollars in the hands of more than 130
million American families with the economic stimulus package. That is
only the first step. It is going to take time to reverse the 7 years of
the Bush failed economic policies that have favored the wealthiest few
to the detriment of the middle class.
Congressional Democrats are working to address the record high cost
of gasoline with the passage of a renewable energy tax incentive that
will lower prices at the pump and create thousands of green jobs. With
325,000 jobs lost over the last 5 months, this Congress extended
unemployment benefits last month, so that those having a hard time
finding a new job have access to 13 additional weeks.
The Bush economy is hurting middle-class families in my home State of
New Jersey, across the Nation, and we must give them relief.
____________________
DELIVER FUEL SOURCES TO THE PEOPLE
(Mr. BISHOP of Utah asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, gas prices have finally hit $4 a
gallon. That's $1.71 higher than when we first met as a Congress, and
the Speaker said she had a secret plan to lower those costs.
Yet rather than talking about energy issues, we are talking, spending
time to find scapegoats to blame for those costs, not realizing that
for every dollar that goes up in energy costs, jobs are lost, income is
reduced, our social programs are harmed and people simply suffer. We
should be fighting for these issues, for the 1,100 people that worked
for American Airlines but were fired because they couldn't afford the
gas for 100 planes; for the Washington, D.C., cabbie who, for the first
time in his life, cannot greet his kids at home when they come home
from school because he has to work 2 hours a day longer for the same
amount of money; for the Virginia father who can no longer attend his
father-and-son outing because he can't afford the gas to go there.
People are suffering, and, instead, we are here on the floor dealing
with congressional minutia. We must be dealing with legislation to
improve conservation, improve production and improve innovations of how
we deliver those fuel sources to the people. Otherwise we will become,
as John Adams said, one useless man is disgraced, two are a law firm,
and three or more become a Congress.
The people have had this Congress.
____________________
DEMOCRATS TAKE ACTION ON RECORD HIGH GAS PRICES AT THE PUMP
(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I, for one, welcome this opportunity to engage
in a debate with my friends across the aisle about who truly stands
with the American consumer versus standing with Big Oil.
Over the weekend, the average price for a gallon of gas hit $4 per
gallon. It's $4.50 per gallon at the pump closest to this debate. These
outrageous prices are taking their toll on all of us, and the average
American driver now pays more than $2,200 per year for gasoline, up
from about $1,400 a year in 2001 at the beginning of the Bush
administration.
Since January 2007, when this Democratic Congress came into the
majority, we have been committed to changing the Nation's energy policy
so we can lower prices at the pump. Last year, this Democratic Congress
passed the landmark law that will make cars and trucks more efficient,
which will eventually save American families somewhere between $700 to
$1,000 each year. We have followed this up this year by passing bills
cracking down on price gouging by Big Oil.
____________________
NATURAL GAS IS THE CLEAN, GREEN FUEL
(Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, today natural gas opened
at $12.65 per 1,000 Btus. That is an almost 100 percent increase from
this time a year ago.
Natural gas is the clean, green fuel that powers our manufacturing
economy, accounts for 23 percent of the energy consumed in America and
heats 52 million of our homes. Yet as prices continue to skyrocket and
companies move offshore because America has the highest natural gas
prices in the world, this Congress has done absolutely nothing to
increase production.
Tomorrow, I will offer an amendment to the Interior appropriations
bill that will lift the congressional moratorium on offshore production
from 50 to 200 miles, which happens to be the safest and most
environmentally friendly place to produce energy. There is no need to
beg the Saudis for more oil and Canada for more natural gas.
We have vast reserves here in America. We need to produce American
energy with an American labor force and give Americans energy they can
afford.
____________________
COLLUSION AND PRICE GOUGING
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, you have got to admit it's a great
system. The oil companies fill the Republican coffers with campaign
contributions, and the Republicans pretend that they care about
consumers while the Republicans stonewall steps to rein in price-
gouging market speculation.
Remember the Enron loophole? That's 50 cents a gallon at the pump
today. Ken Lay is dead, but it lives on.
They are protecting OPEC against World Trade Organization complaints
that the President refuses to sign. He goes over and holds hands with
the Saudi princes, but he won't file a complaint against market
collusion.
Refineries, you are right. We have got a shortage. ExxonMobil says
they are doing just fine. They have no plans to build a refinery. They
are making obscene profits, 6,492 leases, no development. Eighty
percent of the Outer Continental Shelf reserves are available, no plans
to drill. Naval Petroleum Reserve, it is 8 years since Clinton leased
it, zero percent production. There is a sea of oil under it.
Market forces, 11 bucks in 1 day for a barrel of oil, while
consumption is way down in the U.S. It's not market forces, it's
collusion and price gouging. The Bush-Cheney Republican caucus and the
OPEC cartel are doing just fine the way things are. They pretend they
want change, but they don't.
[[Page 11975]]
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6003, PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1253 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1253
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6003) to reauthorize Amtrak, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall
not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote
in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the
Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature
of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 6003
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H. Res. 1253 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R.
6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. The
resolution provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and makes in order 8 of
the 10 amendments submitted for consideration.
From coast to coast we are seeing the effects of rising fuel prices.
Energy prices have been a regular topic here in Congress, in the
newspapers, and at family dinner tables.
The average price of a gallon of gas in Sacramento just climbed to
$4.41. My constituents are feeling this burden every single day.
Driving to work and school is becoming more difficult and more costly
for everyone.
The City of Sacramento also just started a major construction project
on I-5, which cuts through the heart of my district. The already
congested streets are going to become even more crowded.
{time} 1045
That is why I am glad we are here considering such an important bill
to reauthorize and invest in Amtrak. Our constituents are in desperate
need of alternative modes of travel to combat both increased congestion
as well as rising gas prices. Now is the time to capitalize on the
renewed interest in passenger rail.
Millions of Americans from Atlanta to Sacramento are getting out of
their cars and onto public transit. Many of these riders will be
getting on rail for the first time. We must not let the opportunity to
invest in our rail system pass us by.
From Greece to Paris to Tokyo, we have seen the economic benefits of
intercity rail. Let's now bring these benefits to our Nation, our
States, and our hometowns.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act takes great strides
to improve Amtrak and give our constituents the flexibility they need
to travel.
Amtrak was created in 1970 to preserve and reinvigorate intercity
passenger rail service throughout the country. Since 1981, it has been
the Nation's sole provider of regularly scheduled intercity passenger
rail service.
In fiscal year 2007, Amtrak carried more than 25.8 million
passengers, the fifth straight fiscal year of record ridership.
Increased ridership numbers occurred across all of Amtrak's services in
both corridor and long-distance routes. On average, more than 70,000
passengers ride on Amtrak every day.
Amtrak's financial performance has also improved in recent years,
posting record gains in ticket sales. My region has seen the positive
effects and benefits of having efficient transportation options. The
Capitol Corridor line in California is showing that record numbers of
Californians are choosing to use passenger rail. Ridership on the
Capitol Corridor line is up 14 percent and revenue is up 21 percent
from last year. On-time performance was also up from last year.
We can all agree that Amtrak needs to be brought into the 21st
century. This legislation provides a comprehensive framework to improve
Amtrak across the country. It increases capital and operating grants to
Amtrak, helps bring the Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair,
and makes various capital improvements.
H.R. 6003 also creates a new grant program for intercity passenger
rail capital projects. Our urban centers will see tangible benefits and
a commitment to getting cars off the streets by promoting alternative
and efficient modes of transportation.
H.R. 6003 takes great strides to relieve rail congestion. It provides
important congestion grants and works to resolve disputes between
commuter and freight railroads. It also provides significant funding
for high-speed rail corridors, including $1.75 billion for construction
and equipment.
Simply put, this bill will reduce congestion and facilitate ridership
growth.
I want to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for coming
together on this important bipartisan legislation. I am proud that this
Congress is taking this important issue and tackling it, and look
forward to supporting this legislation.
Madam Speaker, passage of the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act is an important step to demonstrating our commitment to
infrastructure investment. This is long overdue, and I encourage
everyone to support the rule and the underlying legislation to provide
the country with a safe and alternative mode of travel.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today and want to thank my friend from California, a member of
the Rules Committee, for yielding this time to me to discuss the
proposed rule
[[Page 11976]]
for consideration of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act.
I rise in opposition to this rule, and to the legislation, neither of
which will meet the Democrats' campaign promises about how they said
they would run the House in a fair and transparent manner, nor the
American taxpayers' expectations how the Federal Government should
manage tax revenues that it takes from hardworking Americans.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 would
reauthorize Government spending on Amtrak over the next 5 years at a
cost of almost $15 billion without requiring any meaningful reforms in
Amtrak's governance or operations and without allocating taxpayer
dollars based on a demand for the service.
As we know, Amtrak is a private corporation that continues to receive
large Federal operating subsidies, despite laws passed by Congress
requiring after 2002, over 5 years ago, that they should be able to run
their operations without Federal grant funds.
Despite the fact that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
approved this legislation, I am not alone in believing that Amtrak
should conduct its operations without picking the pockets of American
families who are already being asked to do this by the do-nothing
Democrat Congress to pay for record prices for energy, and can little
afford to subsidize the inefficiencies of a transportation system that
many of them will never use.
Like me and many of my Republican colleagues, President Bush has
urged this Congress to pass legislation that would: (1) create a system
driven by sound economics where services are provided based primarily
on consumer demand; (2) promote competition; (3) focus Amtrak on core
operating competencies; (4) establish funding partnerships with States;
and, (5) improve investment in and management of the Northeast
Corridor.
I include for the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for
H.R. 6003.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, DC, June 9, 2008.
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
H.R. 6003--Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, (Rep.
Oberstar (D) Minnesota and 41 cosponsors)
The Administration believes that a significantly reformed
intercity passenger rail system has the potential to play a
role of growing importance in providing transportation
options in the United States, including helping to reduce
congestion along heavily traveled intercity corridors.
However, the Administration strongly opposes House passage of
H.R. 6003, which would reauthorize the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) for five years, because it
would authorize an appropriation of more than $14 billion
without requiring any meaningful reforms in Amtrak's
governance or operations and without allocating resources
based on the demand for passenger rail service. For this
reason, and others set forth below, if the bill were
presented to the President in its current form, his senior
advisors would recommend he veto it.
Amtrak is a private corporation that continues to receive
large Federal operating subsidies, despite longstanding
existing law requiring that, after 2002, ``Amtrak shall
operate without Federal operating grant funds appropriated
for its benefit.'' H.R. 6003 authorizes an unprecedented
level of funding but does not include basic measures to hold
Amtrak accountable to taxpayers for its spending decisions.
For example, H.R. 6003 provides scant opportunity for
competition on existing Amtrak routes and does not include
provisions that would condition Amtrak's funding based on
progress on reforms. Measures to address these areas are
included in S. 294 and should be adopted before Congress
completes its work on this measure.
The Administration also would strongly object if bonding
authority were added to the bill. Language in the introduced
version of H.R. 6004, the Rail Infrastructure Development and
Expansion Act for the 21st Century, permits State issuance of
$24 billion in bonds, including but not limited to tax credit
bonds. In particular, the use of tax credit bonds to finance
the construction of high-speed rail capital projects would be
expensive and highly inefficient, and costs would be borne by
taxpayers, not system users.
To move Amtrak towards a sustainable business model, the
Administration urges Congress to pass legislation that
reflects the following core reform principles consistently
articulated by this Administration: (1) create a system
driven by sound economics where services are provided based
primarily on consumer demand; (2) promote competition; (3)
focus Amtrak on core operating competencies; (4) establish
funding partnerships with States; and (5) improve the
investment in and management of the Northeast Corridor.
The Administration appreciates that H.R. 6003 includes
measures to promote private sector development of the
Northeast Corridor and other potential high-speed routes.
Making use of the private sector's operational and financial
management capabilities could help new rail services to
perform at a high level for the traveling public. However,
the Administration is concerned that the authorized funding
levels for high-speed rail in H.R. 6003 send the wrong
message; any expansions of rail service should be based on a
sustainable business model.
Titles III and V would establish certain capital grants
programs requiring workers employed with funds obtained under
these programs be paid pursuant to Davis-Bacon Act
requirements. Thus, Titles III and V would expand Davis-Bacon
Act coverage, which is contrary to the Administration's long-
standing policy of opposing any statutory attempt to expand
or contract the applicability of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing
wage requirements. This expansion could undermine the
effectiveness of the enumerated programs.
____
This statement, which outlines these goals for the improvement of
Amtrak, makes clear that the President's senior advisers would
recommend his veto of today's legislation that falls far short of this
mark.
During testimony in the Rules Committee last evening, it was
represented to the committee that the legislation would allow some
minimal privatization of a few routes, and that some additional studies
and the rearrangement of some management duties at Amtrak were included
in the bill to improve its efficiencies. I appreciate these efforts,
and although I do not think that they go nearly far enough, because as
we speak Amtrak continues to hemorrhage money due to labor disputes,
energy costs, and the requirement that they maintain service on very
lightly used, long-haul routes through rural areas of the country.
Unfortunately, through their inaction, the Democrat majority has
already demonstrated its lack of interest in doing anything serious to
address this issue as well as soaring energy costs. Through its flurry
of constant action on behalf of big labor bosses, they have
demonstrated that they are equally unwilling to do anything to address
that problem for Amtrak, its riders, or the American public.
That means that the only opportunity that Members have to reform
Amtrak in this bill is through cutting the fat from these underused,
rural long-haul lines that are often subsidized at a cost of multiple
hundreds of dollars per ticket by American taxpayers.
To address this problem, I have offered an amendment that is very
similar to my efforts in the past on this issue, but is this time even
more direct in its approach.
In March 2007, I offered an amendment to the Rail and Public
Transportation Security Act that would have prohibited Amtrak from
subsidizing its 10 worst revenue losing long-distance routes, as
determined by its own September 2006 monthly performance report unless
the Secretary of Homeland Security determined that the route was
critical to our homeland security needs. Unfortunately, this
commonsense and fiscally responsible amendment failed.
So today, I will be offering an amendment that is even more direct in
its purpose and even more clear in its intent, an amendment that will
simply prohibit taxpayer subsidies from flowing to the absolutely
worst, most wasteful, most expensive long-distance route that Amtrak
runs, according to its own performance report as of March 2008, unless
this route is deemed to be critical to our Nation's homeland security.
My amendment simply seeks to prevent further good taxpayer dollars
from being thrown after bad by limiting the cost of Amtrak's number one
least profitable route; the number one least profitable route, that's
all we are asking in this bill.
Madam Speaker, if Members cannot support this simple, security-
conscious amendment on behalf of fiscal discipline, I don't know if
there is anything that we can possibly do to help the American
taxpayers any more.
[[Page 11977]]
I ask all of my colleagues to vote against this rule which does not
match the Democrats' rhetoric about running the most honest, open and
transparent Congress in history. I also ask them to oppose this
underlying legislation which even if my amendment were included does
not go far enough to protect the hard-earned money of American
taxpayers from wasteful spending at Amtrak.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I just
want to remind my colleagues that all of the Nation's major
transportation systems receive significant Federal investment, with
good reason. Investment in rail infrastructure creates jobs, helps with
congestion, decreases our dependence on oil, and offers viable
alternatives for many of our citizens, including the elderly and
disabled.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Arcuri), a member of the Rules Committee and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar,
Chairwoman Brown, and Ranking Members Mica and Shuster for their
bipartisan leadership on the Amtrak legislation we will consider today,
and as they showed yesterday in the Rules Committee, for their
passionate advocacy on behalf of this great bill.
There has been much discussion about the condition of our Nation's
transportation system and the growing pressures it faces from all
sides: skyrocketing costs of fuel and maintenance; increased congestion
from growing demand; and global climate change.
H.R. 6003 will take tremendous strides toward addressing these
pressures by continuing our commitment to Amtrak and passenger rail
service. Maintenance costs will continue to hinder us, but expanding
and improving passenger rail service has the potential to relieve
congestion both on our highways and in the skies by offering passengers
a viable alternative. A shift toward rail can reduce the harmful
CO2 emissions generated by the transportation system.
For too long Amtrak has been the symbol of partisan politics in
Washington. If we are to have a robust and successful system that users
can rely on, then we must make a bipartisan commitment to supporting
Amtrak. We cannot waiver on this commitment and expect to keep pace
with the national rail systems of other developed countries around the
world.
Partisan bickering has hurt Amtrak's overall state of repair. In
fact, the Department of Transportation's inspector general concluded
that, ``Despite multiple efforts over the years to change Amtrak's
structure and funding, we have a system that limps along, is never in a
state of good repair, awash in debt, and perpetually on the edge of
collapse.'' That must change.
Amtrak's maintenance backlog is a major impediment to its success. In
recent years, Amtrak's ridership has grown at a modest but continuing
rate, and Amtrak's on-time performance has declined down to an on-time
arrival rate of 67.8 percent.
The Department of Transportation's inspector general has stated that
Amtrak's continued deferral of maintenance increases the risk of a
major failure on its system. Currently, Amtrak has an estimated $6
billion in backlogged capital maintenance needs, including $4 billion
on the Northeast Corridor, its most profitable line.
I would gladly take the train home to my Upstate New York district,
or from my home in Utica to New York City, but currently that is not a
viable option because of the minimal Amtrak service. And even when
there is service available, it is unreliable. Deferred track
maintenance, especially in Upstate New York, has required lowering the
speed limits on significant portions of the track. In addition,
competition with freight carriers for priority on tracks causes Amtrak
trains to become seriously delayed, to the point where train schedules
are simply unreliable. The on-time arrival rate between Albany and
Buffalo is a mere 42 percent, meaning that less than half of the trains
arrive on time.
{time} 1100
Unfortunately, for hardworking Americans, passenger rail is the only
option for travel because of record high fuel prices, making air and
car travel less viable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the
gentleman.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank you for the additional time.
Improving passenger rail service must be part of our long-term
transportation strategy if we expect to effectively decrease our
Nation's reliance on finite fossil fuels, and allow Americans to get to
and from work on time without breaking the bank each month.
The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act will aggressively
address these concerns. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this rule
and the underlying bill and continue to support the viable passenger
rail option in our Nation.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York, my friend,
really made a great argument on exactly what I've been trying to say.
But we've got to get our friends to come around the corner and see that
if we would get Amtrak to do the things that are in their mission
statement, rather than running all across the United States trying to
do things that are not cost effective, are not within their main core
mission, then we could find the money that would be available for them
to support, as the gentleman said, the Northeast Corridor, to spend the
money within the corridor to make them safer.
But, instead, what happens is Amtrak is not held accountable, not by
this Congress. We tell them, just go ahead and do whatever you choose
to do, rather than focusing on their mission which they have, which is
that which is required for traffic on the coasts, the west coast and
the east coast.
So, Madam Speaker, once again, we can't expect Amtrak to do the
things that would be in the best interest if they won't stick to their
mission, if this Congress will not hold them accountable for the
taxpayer dollars that they are utilizing.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from South Carolina, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. I thank my great friend from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I come to the floor today in strong support of H.R.
6003, the bipartisan Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of
2008.
I want to applaud Subcommittee Chairwoman Brown and Ranking Member
Shuster, along with Full Committee Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member
Mica, for crafting a bipartisan reauthorization package that is focused
on both improving Amtrak's capital assets, while also providing for
development of new corridors in partnerships with States.
I am most pleased to see a major commitment to high speed rail
contained in this bill, something that is absent in the Senate's bill.
This legislation calls for more than just paper plans for high speed
rail projects; it actually calls for dedicated funding and private
sector involvement to move these projects forward.
Specifically, I am pleased that this legislation contains a provision
that will improve the ability of future high speed rail corridors in
the Southeast to best meet the changing population patterns and tourist
demands along the cost.
With America facing $4 gas and airlines seeing fuel costs 100 percent
higher than last year, we must look to develop in ways that will ensure
that new travel options such as high speed rail are directed where they
are most needed.
High speed rail can play an important role in reducing congestion in
places like the Grand Strand in my State, which sees 14 million
tourists a year, and Charleston, which is the
[[Page 11978]]
most congested small city in the country. And I am glad that this bill
takes the next step towards addressing the transportation needs of
these communities.
Another important element of this bill moves us towards planning for
rail transportation the same way we plan for highways. Again, as we
face historically high gasoline and diesel fuel costs, we must ensure
that our transportation system is planned out to provide the
connectivity that we need for increased passenger rail use and to take
advantage of freight rail's ability to move a ton of freight 436 miles
on a gallon of fuel. When combined with the investment this bill makes
in high speed rail, and by allowing freight and passenger railroads to
negotiate access to freight-owned tracks, the Committee's
reauthorization proposal will go a long way towards an improved rail
system in the future.
But that future may not be possible, Madam Speaker, if America
continues to face $4 gasoline at the pump. I urge the majority to bring
to the floor one of the many pieces of legislation introduced to open
up domestic sources of energy, or else we won't be able to catch even
an on-time train.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I'd just like to say that this bill
creates a new State Capital Grants program for intercity passenger rail
projects. These grants will help fund new facilities and equipment for
intercity passenger rail and help move commuters off the roads and
pollution out of the air.
The bill also authorizes $1.75 billion to develop 11 high-speed rail
corridors. These corridors will help remove cars from the highway and
reduce pollution.
With that, I would like to reserve my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5
minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the Republican from
Pennsylvania, the gentleman, Mr. Shuster.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I want
to start today by saying that it's a shame that this Congress and that
the majority party, for 18 months, has failed to do anything to
alleviate our energy problems in this country. We've had ample
opportunity to pass legislation that will deal with this rising cost of
energy this country, and as I've said, we've done nothing. The American
people are crying out for us to do something.
And what we can do, it's obvious, in the short-term it's supply. It's
look for new sources of oil, explore in different parts of this
country, offshore. That's the answer in the short-term.
The long term-we have other technologies, clean coal technology,
nuclear energy. We have to start doing something here. The American
people, as I said, are crying out.
Gas in my district is $4 a gallon. In my 7 years in Congress, I've
been approached by people to tell me they disagree with me on this
issue or that issue. But I've never had people come up to me and at the
gas pump and yell at me publicly about this Congress doing absolutely
nothing.
The time is now. We have to act. We've already, 7, 15 years ago we
should have been acting. But we have to move today. As I said, it's
just a shame that we haven't done anything sooner.
That being said, I think that this bill that we have before us today,
The Passenger Rail Investment Improvement Act, does something positive
when it comes to energy in this country. It's a small step. It's a
positive step, but it's a step I think it's important for us to take
today.
The last time that we authorized Amtrak was 1997. Gas was $1.27 a
gallon, and today, as I said, in Central Pennsylvania it's hovering
around $4 a gallon.
We also have, in this country, in 2005, we passed the 300 million
mark in population. It took us 65 years to go from 200 million to 300
million. It's only going to take us 35 years to go from 300 million to
400 million. And that population isn't all going to move out into the
West and to the middle of the country. That population will move around
some, but those corridors around the country that are densely
populated, the Northeast Corridor, Chicago, the west coast, throughout
Texas, Florida, up and down the east coast, those corridors are going
to become even more, the population is going to become denser.
So it's important that we do things to encourage people to use other
forms of transportation, and passenger rail is one of those modes of
transportation. It is one of the, if not the most efficient modes of
transportation to move people, move large quantities of people. And I
think that that's an extremely important reason for us to move forward.
As we watch fuel prices escalate, as we watch the population continue
to grow, and as I said, the American people are desperate to escape gas
prices, long commutes that define their work days, and I think this is
a way for us to move forward.
Now, in the bill there are some important provisions, and one of the
reasons that myself and the Ranking Member Mica signed on to it, and
there are some private sector initiatives. First, we authorize in this
bill for Amtrak, the IG and the Department of Transportation to
identify the least of the underperforming, significantly
underperforming lines in this country; identify at least two of them.
That we then turn to the private sector and allow them to bid to take
those lines over, and to allow them to run them and see if we can't
turn them into efficient operations.
The second privatization initiative is to take a line in this country
that Amtrak has stopped using, has abandoned because of high cost or
whatever reason, and allow the private sector to take it over, re-
establish it and run it efficiently and profitably, we hope.
And third is the Northeast Corridor. It is the most used corridor in
the country. We need to establish high speed rail in this country, and
the Northeast Corridor is where we need to do it, from Washington to
New York; to get private sector companies to come to the table to give
real bids on how much it's going to cost to establish high speed rail
in this country. Not pie in the sky, not throwing darts, as we've done
over the years, but to have real numbers, if it's $10 billion, $20
billion, $60 billion, how much is it going to cost us to have true high
speed which we need in this country, because of the population growth,
because of energy costs that we have in this country.
High speed rail is extremely important in this authorization. And for
the past 20 years we've had a theoretical debate on this floor about
can the private sector run a railroad, can the public, is it the public
responsibility, and can the public do it better than the private
sector?
Well, I believe that the private sector can run a passenger rail
system. And I just have to look back to history. From 1850 to 1950 the
private sector ran a profitable passenger rail system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. SHUSTER. For 100 years the private sector operated passenger rail
profitably. But what happened to it wasn't mismanagement, it was
aviation, the airplane that came about. It was the interstate highway
system that we built in this country. So people got off the trains and
got into their cars and into airplanes. That's what happened to
passenger rail.
And for the last 30 some years, as the government's tried to run it,
it's not done it efficiently. So this is an opportunity for us to have
some real successes, some private sector successes, and we can end this
debate.
Is the private sector able to run a railroad, a passenger rail
system? I believe they are, and I believe that these initiatives are
extremely important for us to have some successes to point to as we
move down the road and give the American people something they need, a
passenger rail system that is profitable, that is successful.
And I want to end as I started. We need to do something on energy.
This is one small step in the right direction. We can do more to solve
our energy problems in this country. We should do more, and we must do
more. The American people deserve that.
[[Page 11979]]
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to point out that one of the
ways we are addressing gas prices is by giving constituents alternative
modes of transportation, thereby reducing the number of cars on the
road. Passenger rail will reduce our demand on foreign oil and help us
become more energy independent.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, the MVP of the Republican
baseball championship team, the gentleman, Mr. Shimkus.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I appreciate Congresswoman Matsui
managing the time. We've worked very hard on clean diesel issues and
the like, so this is really appropriate to this debate though, because
Amtrak uses big diesel engines. And what's happened in the Amtrak
debate that we haven't heard yet, hopefully we'll hear it later on is,
like, one of the biggest threats to Amtrak is the high cost of diesel
fuel. In fact, the fiscal year 2007 budget for fuel was $125 million
for Amtrak. The fiscal year 2008 budget for fuel for Amtrak is $215
million.
Now, how are we going to pay for that? I know how they're going to
pay for it. They're going to raise prices on these commuters. And there
are some commuters who use Amtrak. But again, I'll quote the New York
Times article that says ``the counties where motorists spend the
highest percentage of their income on gasoline tend to be in poor,
rural areas.'' Amtrak doesn't go there. We don't have commuter rails.
We have working trucks. We have big trucks. We haul feed. We haul beef.
We haul pork. We need working trucks and they drive a large distance.
That's why this energy debate is critical. And here's the problem.
All we're trying to do is bring, what's the problem, what's the
solution. What's the problem. What's the solution.
Here's the problem. January 2001. $23 a barrel. January 2006, after
the Democrats took control and promised to lower fuel prices, that's
right here, where are we today? $123 a barrel.
What does that do for gas prices? From $1.45 to $2.33 to over $4 a
gallon for gas hurts rural America, hurts my district.
{time} 1115
Don't come to the floor without a solution. The Outer Continental
Shelf, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, billions of barrels of
oil. We have in this Congress and Congresses of the past said ``off-
limits.'' We're not going to explore this area. We're not going to
recover.
Very similar to our position on ANWR. A position a size of the State
of South Carolina. A drilling platform the size of an airport. And we
are not going to drill there for billions of barrels of oil. President
Clinton vetoed that in 1995. Had he not, that oil would be flowing to
our country today. 1995 he vetoed the bill. President Carter put it
off-limits for oil and gas exploration. That's why ANWR was originally
set aside, but, no, we have that off-limits.
What is another solution? Coal-to-liquid technologies, diesel fuel
that could help lower the price for Amtrak can be produced by taking
U.S. coal, American energy, and turning it into fuel.
We're going to come to this floor talking about, oh, unemployment
compensation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional
minute.
Mr. SHIMKUS. We're going to come to this floor saying, Oh, we've got
to do something because energy heating costs are high; oh, we need to
do something because people are losing their jobs.
I will tell you how we can get jobs back into the economy. Let's use
American-made emergency. Let's open up the coal fields. Let's get mine
workers the jobs. Let's build a coal-to-liquid refinery. Good building
trade jobs. Let's have high-paying jobs operating those refineries.
Let's build pipelines to get this fuel to the Amtrak station to put in
the diesel engines, and let's help our budget airlines not go bankrupt
because of the high cost of fuel. Not just our budget airlines. Here is
one on Continental: Continental joins cut-back frenzy. Soaring fuel
prices.
Why do we have a job problem in this country? Because we have an
energy problem. Until we come to this floor to debate on bringing more
supply to the American public, our economy is always going to be
struggling. We're the only country that looks at energy resources not
as an economic advantage but as an environmental disaster.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, first of all, at the end of the Clinton
administration, oil was $27 a barrel. It is now $134 a barrel. A
significant increase. And my friends on other side of the aisle are
attempting to blame this newly elected Democratic Congress--I think
someone on the other side said we have been here for 18 months--for
this increase.
Furthermore, every bill that the Democrats bring before this Congress
that attempts in any way, shape, fashion, or form to reduce the use and
therefore the price of oil, the other side of the aisle votes ``no.''
The response to high oil prices was to give the big oil companies tax
breaks. Well, that's not the priority of this Democratic Congress.
I want to talk about alternative energy. We want to invest in
alternative modes of transportation like passenger rails which would
take 8 million cars off the road. We want to reduce the dependence on
foreign oil, the dependence on gas and on fossil fuels thereby making
our country stronger both domestically and internationally.
The other side wants to talk about tax breaks for oil and gas
companies. We're talking about investing in Amtrak and making our
streets less congested, our skies cleaner, and our country less
reliable on oil and gas.
What that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire how much time
remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes. The
gentlewoman from California has 18\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I reserve my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for 3 minutes.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, 50 years ago President
Eisenhower created the national highway system which changed the way we
travel in this country. Today, we need to do the same thing with
passenger rail and make the level of investment necessary for us to
become the most successful in the 21st century. That is why I am so
excited about House bill 6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act, which was introduced by Mr. Oberstar, Ranking Member
Mica, subcommittee Ranking Member Shuster, and myself.
Amtrak is extremely valuable to our country. It takes cars off the
road that are already congested. It reduces congestion in the sky, and
it's better for the environment.
In many areas of the country, Amtrak is the only mode of
transportation available. They have shown major increases in ridership,
too, as ridership has increased in 8 of the 9 last years and reached a
record level of 25.8 million passengers just last year. And with the
cost of gas potentially rising to $5 a gallon, there would be even more
riders lining up for Amtrak.
Unfortunately, for many years Amtrak had been given just enough money
to live alone, never getting the necessary funding to make serious
improvement in the system. The hydraulic electric system is 70 years
old, 65 percent of the bridges were built in the 1920s, and several
tunnels which trains travel through every day were built in the 1800s.
In 2005, Amtrak conducted a comprehensive review of its capital
needs. The review determined that Amtrak should invest $4.2 billion to
bring their infrastructure to the state of good repair. Today, with the
backlog of major bridges and tunnel work, the necessary investment
capital has approached an estimated $6 billion.
As other countries continue to invest tens of billions of dollars
each year to
[[Page 11980]]
improve their passenger rail system, we are falling further and further
behind by deferring much-needed improvements to our system. We must
find a way to speed up Amtrak bylaws of repair work and bring its
assets to a good state of repair so that Amtrak can concentrate on
increasing capacity, increasing speed, developing new facilities, and
planning for the future.
These major infrastructure improvements are also necessary to improve
the safety and security of the system and its passengers and workers.
Amtrak has and will continue to play a critical role in evacuation and
transportation systems during national emergencies. Unfortunately, it
is also a prime target for those who wish to harm us, and we must
provide resources to make the system less vulnerable.
I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues in the House and
the Senate to pass important legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. MATSUI. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. The United States used to have a strong
passenger rail system. Now we're at the caboose, and they don't even
use cabooses anymore.
The American people deserve better, and I believe that the Amtrak
reauthorization bill will go a long way to bring the use to its
rightful place as the world leader in passenger rail.
In closing, I went from downtown Brussels to downtown Paris, 200
miles, 1\1/4\ hours; downtown Barcelona to downtown Madrid, 2\1/2\
hours.
We will move forward with high-speed rail in this country.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, you know, I think we've forgotten it's a
private corporation, not a government entity, that we're attempting to
help here.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding the time.
We're debating Amtrak. Well, certainly Amtrak's important for a lot
of folks in the Northeast, but I will tell you as far as my
constituents in western North Carolina, we can't commute to our jobs
using Amtrak. This is not a solution for American energy independence
that is being offered here on the House floor.
What is outrageous is as gas prices go above $4, all they have is
blame rather than action. My Democrat colleagues are simply passing
blame rather than trying to act in a constructive way. And there is a
way for us to act as a Congress to bring down gas prices. It is not by
lawsuits, which is what the Democrat majority wants; it is not by more
taxation on those driving cars, those using energy resources, those
producing resources.
You know, there is a way that we can act. The American people
understand it. This is a question of supply and demand. Seventy percent
of the price of fuel comes from the price of crude oil. The American
people understand this as gas is over $4 a gallon, as a barrel of oil
is over $130 a barrel. And I will tell you, we must act.
In order to lower gas prices, this Congress must act to increase
supply. We have to increase refining capacity, and we have to do this
in a constructive, reasonable, proper way. One day we will end our
dependence on foreign oil. We will end it and we will use our
alternative sources of energy. We will use domestic production. We will
use refining capacity here in the United States. But let's talk about
some important statistics here.
Seven hundred days ago the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said,
Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas
prices. What is the plan? Where's the action? We've seen nothing. The
Democrat Whip, Jim Clyburn, said, Democrats have a plan to help curb
rising gas prices. What have we seen? Nothing. Steny Hoyer, the
Democrat leader, said, Democrats believe that we can do more for the
American people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices. Now,
all of this was said in an election year. What have we seen in the last
2 years from this Democrat Congress? Nothing.
Now, I will tell you it is not perfect. Not all Republicans support
opening up ANWR. Not all Republicans support oil shale. Not all
Republicans support increasing refinery capacity, but roughly 91
percent of Republicans support those issues while 86 percent of House
Democrats oppose those actions.
I think it's time that we come together for a commonsense solution to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation is a sign of
personal virtue but is not a means to energy independence. We must act
together.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I want to remind everybody that investing
in Amtrak is an energy-efficient way to decrease our dependence on
foreign oil. One rail line can carry the equivalent of 16 highway
lanes, and Amtrak uses 50 percent less energy per passenger than air
travel.
I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, if I could inquire on the time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 7 minutes. The
gentlewoman from California has 15 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire of my colleague if she has
additional requests for time.
Ms. MATSUI. I have no additional speakers, and I will close.
I would yield to the gentleman to use his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentlewoman for saying she has no
additional speakers, so I will continue.
Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Madam Speaker, whatever the outcome of this debate on Amtrak today
is, it is not going to affect my constituents very much. What does
affect them every minute of every day is the price of energy. I would
suggest that we should defeat the previous question on the rule so that
the gentleman, Mr. Sessions, can offer an amendment to this bill that
would bring to the floor a bill that has provisions that will do
something about energy, that will do something on the issue that
affects every American every moment of every day.
That amendment would bring to the floor H.R. 3089, the No More
Excuses Energy Act, and at the same time, a discharge petition today is
being filed to require the House to vote on that bill.
The philosophy of that bill is that we need to produce more energy of
all kinds here at home, and we have run out of time to make excuses on
why we can't do that. And you have heard some of those excuses and some
of the political blame game already today during the debate. Some
people want to blame China and India for using too much oil. Some
people want to blame big oil companies. Other people want to blame OPEC
for not producing enough. Some people even want to blame suburban moms
for using too much energy as they drive their kids to sporting events
in their minivans.
{time} 1130
They want to say they're using too much oil. But the point is, we've
had enough of this blame game. The point is, it's time for this
Congress to act and actually do something. And the way to act today is
to vote down the previous question so today we can do something about
the cost of energy throughout the country.
The No More Excuses Act takes the approach that we need to do more of
everything. Yes, it allows drilling in Alaska and off our coasts, but
it also encourages companies to take the CO2 that goes up
the smokestacks and put it back in the ground to flush out all of the
oil on existing wells so that we can get every drop we can out of the
ground.
This bill encourages the building of more refineries. It encourages
the building of nuclear power plants. It encourages more wind energy.
There is a lot of wind energy activity in my district, but what I hear
from all of those involved is, when Congress just extends the tax
credit 1 or 2 years at a time, there is no way that we can make the
financial decisions we need to make.
[[Page 11981]]
So this bill that ought to come to the floor today would extend it by
10 years so that we can have a major investment in wind, as well as all
the other forms of energy that we can produce here at home, because
every bit of energy we produce here at home is one less barrel of oil
we have to buy from overseas. And that makes sense.
What we're trying to do is to force some action that will make things
better, not worse. Unfortunately, what the public and what the markets
hear from this Congress so far the last 18 months are ideas that make
things worse. They want to put a windfall profits tax on ``Big Oil'' so
that they are discouraged from producing more oil. They may not know by
the way, Madam Speaker, that 90 percent of the wells drilled in the
continental United States are drilled by independent companies, not Big
Oil. But what people hear from this Congress is we want to take away
the incentives that encourage us to drill the Deepwater in the gulf. So
other countries are there drilling, but we want to tie our hands and
not produce the energy we have; we'd rather buy the oil from Saudi
Arabia or Venezuela or Nigeria. That makes no sense.
There is no one perfect answer, but Madam Speaker, my argument is
that rather than pointing the fingers of blame, it's time for no more
excuses. It's time for action today, and that action can come by voting
down the previous question so that the rule can be amended and we can
take action today that produces more energy of all kinds here at home.
That will matter to my constituents, and that will matter to all
Americans.
Ms. MATSUI. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Thornberry, said it
best: no excuses. It's time for us to get our work done, and the bottom
line is is that the supply side of the equation is the problem. If we
had lots of supply, prices wouldn't be what they are. We need to bring
to the table American energy for America's independence, but quite
frankly, we're not only tired of paying higher prices, we're also tired
of building new Dubais across the world. And that rests at the feet of
our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who has a policy that restricts Americans
from drilling for oil and having energy independence. Today is no
excuses.
Madam Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this
Democrat Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to do
anything constructive, constructive, to address the domestic supply
issues that have created the skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs
that American families are facing today.
So, today, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
this House can address the real solutions to energy costs. That's the
supply side. By defeating the previous question, I will move to amend
the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses
Energy Act of 2007, introduced by my friend Mac Thornberry of Texas,
that he introduced back 1 year ago in July 2007.
This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by opening new
American oil refineries; investing in clean energy sources such as
wind, nuclear and captured carbon dioxide; and making available more
homegrown energy through environmentally sensitive exploration of the
arctic energy slope and America's deep sea reserves.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of this
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 Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. I urge all of my colleagues to take this attempt to
spend almost $15 billion of taxpayers' money on subsidized trains and
turn it into something positive about energy prices for all of America
and for American independence so that we can say we are finally working
together and doing something positive about the rising price of fuel.
By defeating the previous question, we can do that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I
yield myself the balance of my time.
The rule before us today is a fair rule that allows us to highlight
transportation challenges and our vision for a better tomorrow. It is
Congress' responsibility to provide our constituents with alternative
modes of transportation, especially as we see increased congestion and
ever rising gas prices.
The Democratic majority is fighting to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil and bring down gas prices and launch a cleaner, smarter
energy future for America that lowers costs and creates hundreds and
thousands of green jobs. This is a marked change from the 7 years of
the current administration's energy policies of simply drilling for
more fossil fuels and providing even greater taxpayer subsidies to big
oil companies already earning record profits.
The underlying bill, H.R. 6033, the Passenger Rail Investment and
Improvement Act of 2008, takes huge steps to modernize Amtrak and give
it the tools it needs to operate effectively and efficiently.
By giving this Nation viable passenger rail, we will be able to
decrease our dependence on foreign oil and give commuters options to
get to work and school. In fact, Amtrak takes 8 million cars off the
road.
We have a commitment to maintain and improve the backbone of our
Nation's transportation infrastructure system. This bill does just
that, and I urge its adoption.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on
the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1253 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3089) to secure
unrestricted reliable energy for American consumption and
transmission. All points of order against the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Natural Resources, the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the chairman
and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce;
and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered
by Representative Rahall of West Virginia, which shall be
considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent; and (3) 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
[[Page 11982]]
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.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam 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. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as a member of the Committee on Science and Technology:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to notify you of my
resignation from the Committee on Science and Technology,
effective today.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Darlene Hooley,
Member of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as a member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, Capitol, H-232,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker, Thank you for the tremendous
opportunity to serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Due to the pending assignment, please accept my resignation
from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
effective Tuesday, June 10.
It was an honor to serve on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee under the tremendous leadership of
Chairman Oberstar. The Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee has provided me with a useful forum to help shape
our country's investment in our roadways and transportation
systems. I look forward to continuing to following the
success of the committee and offering my assistance wherever
possible.
It is with great enthusiasm and dedication that I look
forward to serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee. My
strongest desire as a Member of Congress is to improve the
lives of the people I represent, and serving on this
committee will afford me invaluable opportunities to make a
demonstrative and positive difference in their lives.
I appreciate your attention to my resignation, and please
do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any assistance
to you.
Sincerely,
Doris O. Matsui,
Member of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, Capitol Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I am writing to notify you of my
resignation from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Please
consider this resignation effective today.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mike Doyle,
Member of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
resignation as a member of the Committee on Financial Services:
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 10, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, Capitol Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: At the request of the Speaker and to
provide a slot for a newly-elected colleague, I resign my
membership on the Financial Services Committee.
Very truly yours,
Jim Marshall.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.
____________________
MERIDA INITIATIVE TO COMBAT ILLICIT NARCOTICS AND REDUCE ORGANIZED
CRIME AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6028) to authorize law enforcement and security assistance,
and assistance to enhance the rule of law and strengthen civilian
institutions, for Mexico and the countries of Central America, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6028
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Merida
Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized
Crime Authorization Act of 2008''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR MEXICO
Sec. 101. Findings.
Sec. 102. Declarations of policy.
Subtitle A--Law Enforcement and Security Assistance
Sec. 111. Purposes of assistance.
Sec. 112. Authorization of assistance.
Sec. 113. Activities supported.
Sec. 114. Limitation on assistance.
Sec. 115. Authorization of appropriations.
[[Page 11983]]
Subtitle B--Assistance to Enhance the Rule of Law and Strengthen
Civilian Institutions
Sec. 121. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 122. Authorization of assistance.
Sec. 123. Activities supported.
Sec. 124. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE II--ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AMERICA
Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Declarations of policy.
Subtitle A--Law Enforcement and Security Assistance
Sec. 211. Purposes of assistance.
Sec. 212. Authorization of assistance.
Sec. 213. Activities supported.
Sec. 214. Limitation on assistance.
Sec. 215. Authorization of appropriations.
Subtitle B--Assistance to Enhance the Rule of Law and Strengthen
Civilian Institutions
Sec. 221. Authorization of assistance.
Sec. 222. Activities supported.
Sec. 223. Authorization of appropriations.
TITLE III--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Conditions on provision of assistance.
Sec. 302. Limitations on provision of assistance.
Sec. 303. Limitation on monitoring.
Sec. 304. Exemption from prohibition on assistance for law enforcement
forces.
Sec. 305. Relationship to other authority.
Sec. 306. Rule of construction.
TITLE IV--SUPPORT ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
Sec. 401. Report on reduction of drug demand in the United States.
Sec. 402. Reduction of southbound flow of illegal weapons.
Sec. 403. Reduction of southbound flow of illegal precursor chemicals
and bulk-cash transfers.
Sec. 404. Report.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Coordinator of United States Government Activities to
Implement the Merida Initiative.
Sec. 502. Metrics and oversight mechanisms.
Sec. 503. Report.
Sec. 504. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 505. Sunset.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees''--
(A) means--
(i) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; and
(ii) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
(B) for purposes of titles IV and V, includes the Committee
on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
(2) Countries of central america.--The term ``countries of
Central America'' means Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama and includes Haiti
and the Dominican Republic.
(3) Merida initiative.--The term ``Merida Initiative''
means the program announced by the United States and Mexico
on October 22, 2007, to fight illicit narcotics trafficking
and criminal organizations throughout the Western Hemisphere.
TITLE I--ASSISTANCE FOR MEXICO
SEC. 101. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The drug crisis facing the United States remains a
significant national security threat.
(2) The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates
that 90 percent of illegal drugs that enter the United States
come through the Mexico-Central America corridor.
(3) The same smuggling routes that are used to bring
illegal narcotics north are utilized to illegally distribute
arms, precursor chemicals, and bulk cash transfers south.
(4) Drug gangs that operate in the United States, Mexico,
and Central America have become sophisticated and vertically-
integrated operations expert at penetrating the United
States-Mexico border.
(5) Narcotics-related activity and expanding cross-border
trafficking is dangerously undermining the security
environment for our neighbors to the South, as well as in the
United States.
(6) Mexico can and has served as a critical ally and
partner in stemming the flow of illegal narcotics into the
United States. Under the leadership of Mexican President
Felipe Calderon, the United States and Mexico have initiated
an approach of joint responsibility to confront the threat of
illicit narcotics trafficking and organized crime in the
Western Hemisphere.
(7) The spread of illicit narcotics through United States
borders and the violence that accompanies it cannot be halted
without a comprehensive interdiction and security strategy
planned and executed jointly with our southern neighbors.
(8) In March 2007, President George W. Bush and Mexican
President Calderon held a summit in the Mexican City of
Merida and agreed that the United States and Mexico must
expand bilateral and regional cooperation to fight violence
stemming from narcotrafficking and regional criminal
organizations.
(9) On October 22, 2007, the United States and Mexico
issued a joint statement announcing the Merida Initiative, a
program to fight illicit narcotics trafficking and criminal
organizations throughout the Western Hemisphere.
(10) In the joint statement--
(A) Mexico pledged to ``strengthen its operational
capabilities to more effectively fight drug-traffickers and
organized crime'';
(B) the United States pledged ``to intensify its efforts to
address all aspects of drug trafficking (including demand-
related portions) and continue to combat trafficking of
weapons and bulk currency to Mexico''; and
(C) both nations pledged to ``augment cooperation,
coordination, and the exchange of information to fight
criminal organizations on both sides of the border''.
(11) A long-term strategy to adequately contain the
northbound and southbound flows of illicit narcotics along
the United States-Mexico border, as well as protect the vast
and free flow of trade, will require the United States to
partner with its southern neighbors in their efforts to build
the capacity of their own law enforcement agencies and
enhance the rule of law, as well as to fortify United States
illicit narcotics reduction efforts.
SEC. 102. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.
Congress makes the following declarations:
(1) The Merida Initiative is a critical part of a growing
partnership and strategy of cooperation between the United
States and its southern neighbors to confront the illegal
flow of narcotics as well as violence and organized crime
that it has spawned.
(2) The United States needs to ensure the free flow of
trade between the United States and its critical neighbor,
Mexico, while ensuring that the United States border is
protected from illegal smuggling into the United States.
(3) The United States must intensify efforts to stem the
flow of precursor chemicals, bulk cash, and the so-called
``iron-river'' of arms illegally flowing south, as well as
demand-related aspects of the illicit narcotics phenomenon.
(4) The United States should provide its expertise to meet
immediate security needs along the United States-Mexico
border, fight the production and flow of illicit narcotics,
and support Mexico in its efforts to do the same.
(5) The United States should support the Government of
Mexico's work to expand its own law enforcement to
independently conduct successful counternarcotics and
organized crime-related operations.
(6) The Merida Initiative reflects the belief that Mexican
military involvement is required in the short-term to
stabilize the security situation, but that most aspects of
this problem fall into the realm of law enforcement.
(7) In implementing the Merida Initiative, the United
States should work with its southern neighbors to mitigate
the so-called ``balloon effect'' in which successful
counternarcotics efforts shift narcotics-related activities
to other areas.
(8) The United States should coordinate with the Congress
of the Union of Mexico to ensure full partnership on the
programs authorized under this Act.
Subtitle A--Law Enforcement and Security Assistance
SEC. 111. PURPOSES OF ASSISTANCE.
The purposes of assistance under this subtitle are to--
(1) enhance the ability of the Government of Mexico, in
cooperation with the United States, to control illicit
narcotics production, trafficking, drug trafficking
organizations, and organized crime;
(2) help build the capacity of law enforcement forces of
Mexico to control illicit narcotics production, trafficking,
drug trafficking organizations, and organized crime;
(3) aid the support role that the armed forces of Mexico is
providing to law enforcement agencies of Mexico as the
security situation in Mexico is initially stabilized;
(4) protect and secure the United States-Mexico border, and
control illegal activity going south as well as north;
(5) strengthen the bilateral and regional ties of the
United States with Mexico and the countries of Central
America by assuming shared responsibility and offering
concrete assistance in this area of great mutual concern;
(6) strengthen respect for internationally recognized human
rights and the rule of law in efforts to stabilize the
security environment relating to illicit narcotics production
and trafficking and organized crime; and
(7) support the judicial branches of the Government of
Mexico and the countries of Central America, as well as
support anti-corruption efforts in those countries; and
(8) respond to the direct requests of the Government of
Mexico that the United States reduce the demand for illicit
narcotics in the United States, stem the flow of illegal arms
into Mexico from the United States, stem the flow of illegal
bulk-cash transfers into Mexico from the United States, and
stem the flow of illegal precursor
[[Page 11984]]
chemicals into Mexico from the United States.
SEC. 112. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.
To carry out the purposes of section 111, the President is
authorized to provide assistance for Mexico to support the
activities described in section 113.
SEC. 113. ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.
(a) In General.--Activities that may be supported by
assistance under section 112 include the following:
(1) Counternarcotics and countertrafficking.--To assist in
building the capacity of law enforcement and security forces
of Mexico to eradicate illicit narcotics trafficking and
reduce trafficking-fueled violence, including along the
United States-Mexico border, including assistance such as--
(A) radar and aerial surveillance equipment;
(B) land and maritime interdiction equipment and training,
including--
(i) transport helicopters and night-operating capabilities;
(ii) surveillance platform planes; and
(iii) maintenance and training relating to maintenance of
aircraft; and
(C) training of security and law enforcement units to plan
and execute counternarcotics operations.
(2) Port, airport, and related security.--To assist in
monitoring and controlling the United States-Mexico border
and the border between Mexico and Central America to combat
illicit narcotics trafficking, including assistance such as--
(A) computer infrastructure and equipment;
(B) secure communications networks; and
(C) nonintrusive monitoring technology.
(3) Operational technology.--
(A) Assistance objectives.--To assist in investigation and
collection of intelligence against illicit drug trafficking
organizations, including--
(i) expansion of intelligence databases; and
(ii) hardware, operating systems, and training for updating
the communications networks of security agencies.
(B) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(i) operational technology transferred to the Government of
Mexico for intelligence or law enforcement purposes should be
used solely for the purposes for which the operational
technology was intended; and
(ii) the United States should take all necessary steps to
ensure that use of operational technology described in clause
(i) is consistent with United States law, including
protections of freedom of expression, freedom of movement,
and freedom of association.
(4) Public security and law enforcement.--To assist in the
modernization of law enforcement entities and prevent crime,
including assistance and activities such as--
(A) law enforcement training and equipment, including--
(i) transport helicopters;
(ii) surveillance aircraft, including Cessna Caravan light
utility aircraft;
(iii) nonintrusive inspection equipment; and
(iv) human rights training for law enforcement units;
(B) enhancement of the Government of Mexico's financial
intelligence unit;
(C) safety-related equipment for law enforcement officers
and prosecutors, including protective vests and helmet sets;
(D) reduction of drug demand in Mexico, including
activities such as--
(i) assistance to the National Council Against Addictions
(CONADIC) to establish an Internet web-based support network;
(ii) establishment of a national data center to support the
CONADIC; and
(iii) training of CONADIC and other agency staff in best
practices and outreach and treatment programs, and design of
a methodology to implement best practices in conjunction with
the National Network for Technological Transfers in
Addiction.
(b) Provision of Helicopters.--Funds made available to
carry out this subtitle to provide helicopters to the
Government of Mexico, shall, to the extent possible, be used
to procure or provide helicopters that are of a similar
manufacture to those helicopters already in the possession of
the Government of Mexico in order to facilitate integration
of those assets into Mexico's existing air fleet.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the United States shall ensure, to the extent possible, that
assistance under this subtitle is made available and cross-
utilized by the armed forces of Mexico and relevant law
enforcement agencies of the Government of Mexico, including
the Mexican Office of the Attorney General.
SEC. 114. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE.
(a) Limitation.--No assistance may be provided under this
subtitle to any unit of the armed forces of Mexico or any
unit of the law enforcement agencies of Mexico if the
Secretary of State determines that, consistent with section
620J of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378d),
there is credible evidence that such unit has committed gross
violations of human rights.
(b) Exception.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of State determines and reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that the Government of
Mexico is taking effective measures to bring the responsible
members of the unit of the armed forces or law enforcement
agencies, as the case may be, to justice.
SEC. 115. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--To carry out this subtitle, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the President $350,000,000
for fiscal year 2008, $390,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and
$40,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(b) Limitation.--
(1) In general.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations under subsection (a)--
(A) not more than $205,000,000 may be provided as
assistance for the armed forces of Mexico for 2008;
(B) not more than $120,000,000 may be provided as
assistance for the armed forces of Mexico for 2009; and
(C) not more than $9,000,000 may be provided as assistance
for the armed forces of Mexico for 2010.
(2) Additional limitation.--None of the funds appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations under
subsection (a) for fiscal year 2009 may be provided as
assistance for the Mexican Secretariat of Public Security
until the President determines that the Mexican National
Registry of Police Personnel (Registro Nacional de Personal
Policial) is operational at the federal, state, and local
levels.
(c) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are--
(1) authorized to remain available until expended; and
(2) in addition to funds otherwise available for such
purposes, including funds available under chapter 8 of part I
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2291 et
seq.).
Subtitle B--Assistance to Enhance the Rule of Law and Strengthen
Civilian Institutions
SEC. 121. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that, as a critical part of a
joint, comprehensive security, counternarcotics, and
organized crime initiative, the United States should
support--
(1) programs of the United States Agency for International
Development and other United States agencies focused on
strengthening civilian institutions and rule of law programs
in Mexico at the federal, state, and local levels; and
(2) anti-corruption, transparency, and human rights
programs to ensure due process and expand a culture of
lawfulness in Mexico.
SEC. 122. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.
The President is authorized to provide assistance for
Mexico to support the activities described in section 123.
SEC. 123. ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.
Activities that may be supported by assistance under
section 122 include the following:
(1) Institution building and rule of law.--To assist
Mexico's efforts to expand the rule of law and build the
capacity, transparency, and trust in government institutions,
including assistance such as--
(A) rule of law and systemic improvements in judicial and
criminal justice sector institutions, including--
(i) courts management and prosecutorial capacity building;
(ii) prison reform activities, including those relating to
anti-gang and anti-organized crime efforts;
(iii) anti-money laundering programs;
(iv) victim and witness protection and restitution; and
(v) promotion of transparent oral trials via training for
the judicial sector;
(B) police professionalization, including--
(i) training regarding use of force;
(ii) human rights education and training;
(iii) training regarding evidence preservation and chain of
custody; and
(iv) enhanced capacity to vet candidates;
(C) support for the Mexican Office of the Attorney General,
including--
(i) judicial processes improvement and coordination;
(ii) enhancement of forensics capabilities;
(iii) data collection and analyses;
(iv) case tracking and management;
(v) financial intelligence functions; and
(vi) maintenance of data systems.
(2) Anti-corruption, transparency, and human rights.--To
assist law enforcement and court institutions in Mexico to
develop mechanisms to ensure due process and proper oversight
and to respond to citizen complaints, including assistance
such as--
(A) enhancement of polygraph capability in the Mexican
Police agency (SSP);
(B) support for greater transparency and accountability in
the Mexican legal system, including--
(i) establishment of a center in the Mexican Office of the
Attorney General for receipt of citizen complaints;
(ii) establishment of clerk of the court system to track
cases and pretrial detentions;
(iii) reorganization of human and financial resources
systems; and
(iv) equipping and training of criminal investigators; and
(C) promotion of human rights, including--
(i) support for human rights organizations, bar
associations, and law schools; and
(ii) training for police, prosecutors, and corrections
officers.
[[Page 11985]]
(3) Prevention.--To assist in the prevention of individuals
from participating in illicit narcotics-related violent
activities, such as--
(A) establishment of programs that address domestic
violence and increase school attendance rates; and
(B) expansion of intervention programs, including after-
school programs and programs for at-risk and criminal
involved youth.
(4) Development.--To assist in the development of areas
where lack of jobs breeds illicit narcotics-related violence,
including--
(A) expansion of alternative livelihood programs, including
job creation programs and rural development programs and the
provision of microenterprise development assistance under
title VI of chapter 2 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2211 et seq.); and
(B) establishment of gang reeducation and training
programs.
SEC. 124. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--To carry out this subtitle, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the President $120,000,000
for fiscal year 2008, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and
$110,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are--
(1) authorized to remain available until expended; and
(2) in addition to funds otherwise available for such
purposes, including funds available under chapter 8 of part I
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
TITLE II--ASSISTANCE FOR COUNTRIES OF CENTRAL AMERICA
SEC. 201. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) A May 2007 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC) argues that countries of Central America
are particularly vulnerable to violent crimes fueled by
illicit narcotics trafficking and corruption because such
countries are geographically located between the world's
largest drug producing and drug consuming countries.
(2) According to Assistant Secretary of State for Western
Hemisphere Affairs Thomas Shannon, ``[T]he nations of Central
America have committed to collective action to address these
common security concerns. Through the Central American
Integration System (SICA), the governments have expressed the
political resolve to join forces to strengthen regional
security; however they lack sufficient tools and capacity to
execute such will.''.
(3) Crime and violence in Central America has increased in
recent years.
(4) In 2005, the estimated murder rate per 100,000 people
was roughly 56 in El Salvador, 41 in Honduras, and 38 in
Guatemala.
(5) Youth gang violence has been one of the major factors
contributing to increased violence in Central America, with
the United States Southern Command estimating that there are
70,000 gang members in Central America.
(6) Many Central American youth gangs are transnational and
negatively impact both Central America and the United States.
(7) Youth gang violence cannot be curbed only through
enforcement, but must also include a substantial investment
in prevention, rehabilitation, and reintegration.
(8) Deportees sent from the United States back to Central
America, while not a central cause of crime and violence, can
contribute to crime and violence in Central America.
(9) Guatemala has experienced a surge in murders of women
in recent years, many of which have been committed by illicit
narcotics traffickers and other organized criminals.
(10) Violence between partners, particularly violence by
men against their wives or girlfriends, is widespread in
Central America, and an international violence against women
survey comparing selected countries in Africa, Latin America,
Europe, and Asia found that 60 percent of women in Costa
Rica--often considered the least violent country in Central
America--reported having experienced domestic violence during
their lives.
(11) Weak justice systems in the countries of Central
America have led to a high level of impunity in Central
America.
(12) The United Nations International Commission against
Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) was recently created to begin
to address impunity related to illegally armed groups in
Guatemala.
(13) The United States and the Central American Integration
System (SICA) signed an agreement in July 2007 to improve
intelligence sharing and policing and to institutionalize
dialogue on regional security.
SEC. 202. DECLARATIONS OF POLICY.
Congress makes the following declarations:
(1) A long-term United States strategy to curb illicit
narcotics trafficking must include Central America, which is
the corridor for 90 percent of the cocaine that transits from
South America to the United States.
(2) It is in the interest of the United States to support a
long-term commitment to assisting the countries of Central
America to improve security by combating illicit narcotics
trafficking, investing in prevention programs, increasing
intelligence sharing, improving regional security
coordination, improving border and customs capabilities,
professionalizing police, justice, and other government
officials, and funding programs to reintegrate deportees from
the United States.
(3) The countries of Central America are committed to
combating illicit narcotics trafficking and its related
violence and crime, including gang violence, and the United
States must seize the opportunity to work in partnership with
Central America.
Subtitle A--Law Enforcement and Security Assistance
SEC. 211. PURPOSES OF ASSISTANCE.
The purposes of assistance authorized by this subtitle are
to--
(1) enhance the ability of governments of countries of
Central America to control illicit narcotics production,
trafficking, illicit drug trafficking organizations, and
organized crime;
(2) help build the capacity of law enforcement agencies of
the countries of Central America to control illicit narcotics
production, trafficking, illicit drug trafficking
organizations, and organized crime;
(3) strengthen the bilateral ties of the United States with
the countries of Central America by offering concrete
assistance in this area of great mutual concern;
(4) strengthen respect for internationally recognized human
rights and the rule of law in efforts to stabilize the
security environment relating to illicit narcotics production
and trafficking and organized crime; and
(5) support the judicial branch of governments of the
countries of Central America, as well as to support anti-
corruption efforts in such countries.
SEC. 212. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.
To carry out the purposes of section 211, the President is
authorized to provide assistance for the countries of Central
America to support the activities described in section 213.
SEC. 213. ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.
Activities that may be supported by assistance under
section 212 include the following:
(1) Counternarcotics, countertrafficking, and related
security.--
(A) Assistance objectives.--To assist in the following:
(i) Investigation and collection of intelligence against
illicit narcotics trafficking.
(ii) Combating illegal trafficking in arms.
(iii) Prevention of bulk currency smuggling.
(iv) Collection of information on crime and establishment
of a regional database.
(B) Assistance.--Activities under subparagraph (A) may
include--
(i) automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS);
(ii) vetting sensitive investigative units to collaborate
on counternarcotics at the federal, state, and local levels;
(iii) technical assistance to develop strong and effective
financial crimes investigation units;
(iv) maritime security support, including refurbishing and
procuring patrol boats;
(v) firearms interdiction training; and
(vi) illicit narcotics demand reduction programs.
(2) Public security and law enforcement.--To assist in
building the capacity of the police in countries of Central
America, supporting efforts to combat transnational gangs,
investing in gang prevention and rehabilitation programs, and
programs for the reintegration of deportees, including
assistance such as--
(A) funding to continue the United States-Central American
Integration System (SICA) Dialogue;
(B) youth gang prevention activities, including targeted
education for at-risk youth, vocational training and funding
of community centers in areas with high youth gang violence
rates and other risk factors;
(C) programs to reintegrate deportees from the United
States back into the societies of their home countries to
avoid further criminal activity;
(D) transnational anti-gang initiatives;
(E) police professionalization, including--
(i) training regarding use of force;
(ii) human rights education and training;
(iii) training regarding evidence preservation and chain of
custody; and
(iv) enhanced capacity to vet candidates;
(F) utilization of the International Law Enforcement
Academy (ILEA) in El Salvador consistent with traditional
respect for human rights and professional police practices;
(G) police training programs of the Organization of
American States (OAS);
(H) police equipment, including communications equipment;
and
(I) anti-domestic violence education programs and women's
shelters.
SEC. 214. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE.
(a) Limitation.--No assistance may be provided under this
subtitle to any unit of the armed forces of a country of
Central America or any unit of the law enforcement agencies
of a country of Central America if the Secretary of State
determines that, consistent with section 620J of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378d), there is credible
evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of
human rights.
[[Page 11986]]
(b) Exception.--The limitation in subsection (a) shall not
apply if the Secretary of State determines and reports to the
appropriate congressional committees that the government of
the relevant country of Central America is taking effective
measures to bring the responsible members of the unit of the
armed forces or law enforcement agencies, as the case may be,
to justice.
SEC. 215. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--To carry out this subtitle, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the President $60,000,000
for fiscal year 2008, $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and
$80,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are--
(1) authorized to remain available until expended; and
(2) in addition to funds otherwise available for such
purposes, including funds under chapters 2 and 8 of part I of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2166 and 2291
et seq.).
(c) Limitation.--Of the amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) for
any fiscal year, at least $15,000,000 should be made
available to carry out section 213(2)(B).
Subtitle B--Assistance to Enhance the Rule of Law and Strengthen
Civilian Institutions
SEC. 221. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.
The President is authorized to provide assistance for the
countries of Central America to support the activities
described in section 222.
SEC. 222. ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED.
Activities that may be supported by assistance under
section 221 include assistance in building the capacity,
transparency, and trust in the justice system of the
countries of Central America and reducing high impunity rates
in the countries of Central America, including assistance
such as--
(1) improved police academies and entry level training on
crime investigations;
(2) courts management and prosecutor capacity building;
(3) witness and victim protection programs, including in
Guatemala in coordination with the United Nations
International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala
(CICIG);
(4) programs to enhance transparency in the procedures to
designate and remove personnel in the recipient country's
judicial system;
(5) prosecutor and judge protection programs, including in
Guatemala and in coordination with the CICIG;
(6) short-term assignment of United States Government
personnel to the CICIG to provide technical assistance for
criminal investigations, specifically but not limited to
investigations involving money laundering so long as this
assignment does not negatively impact United States domestic
operations;
(7) regional juvenile justice reform;
(8) prison management;
(9) programs to rehabilitate gang members released from
prison, including job training; and
(10) community policing, including human rights and use of
force training for community policing projects.
SEC. 223. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--To carry out this title, there are
authorized to be appropriated to the President $40,000,000
for fiscal year 2008, $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and
$95,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
(b) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a) are--
(1) authorized to remain available until expended; and
(2) in addition to funds otherwise available for such
purposes, including funds available under chapters 2 and 8 of
part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2166
and 2291 et seq.).
TITLE III--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. CONDITIONS ON PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--The President may not provide assistance
under title I or II to a foreign country for a fiscal year
until the end of a 15-day period beginning on the date on
which the President transmits to the appropriate
congressional committees a determination that the
requirements described in subsection (b) have been met with
respect to the government of such foreign country for such
fiscal year.
(b) Required Determination.--The requirements referred to
in subsection (a) are the following:
(1) The provision of assistance will not adversely affect
the human rights situation in the foreign country.
(2) Vetting procedures are in place to ensure that members
and units of the armed forces and law enforcement agencies of
the foreign country that may receive assistance under title I
or II have not been involved in human rights violations.
(3) The civilian authority in the foreign country is
investigating and prosecuting any member of any government
agency or entity receiving assistance under title I or II who
has been credibly alleged to have committed human rights
violations on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(4) Equipment and material provided as support is being
used only by officials and employees of the government of the
foreign country who have been approved by such government to
perform counternarcotics activities, including on the basis
of the background investigations by such government.
(5) The government of the foreign country has cooperated
with the Secretary of State to ensure that--
(A) the equipment and material provided as support will be
used only by the officials and employees referred to in
paragraph (4);
(B) none of the equipment or material will be transferred
(by sale, gift, or otherwise) to any person or entity not
authorized by the United States to receive the equipment or
material; and
(C) the equipment and material will, to the extent
possible, be used for the purposes intended by the United
States Government and will be utilized by those agencies for
which such assistance is intended.
(6) The government of the foreign country has implemented,
in consultation with the Secretary of State, a system that
will provide an accounting and inventory of the equipment and
material provided as support.
(7) The government of the foreign country will, along with
United States personnel, conduct periodic observation and
review of the use of the equipment and material provided as
support under terms and conditions similar to the terms and
conditions imposed with respect to such observation and
review under section 505(a)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2314(a)(3)).
(8) To the extent the foreign country has received
equipment in the past, it has utilized the equipment properly
and in a manner that warrants additional provision of
equipment or assistance.
SEC. 302. LIMITATIONS ON PROVISION OF ASSISTANCE.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) activities undertaken under titles I and II of this Act
should be performed wherever possible by official employees,
personnel, or officers of the federal, state, or local
government of the recipient foreign country; and
(2) the United States should limit, to the maximum extent
possible, the number of United States civilians and foreign
nationals retained as contractors in a recipient country.
(b) Limitations.--Except as provided in subsection (c)--
(1) none of the funds made available to carry out title I
may be available for the employment of any United States
individual civilian retained as a contractor in Mexico or any
foreign national retained as a contractor if that employment
would cause the total number of individual civilian
contractors employed in Mexico in support of the Merida
Initiative who are funded by United States funds to exceed
50;
(2) none of the funds made available to carry out title II
may be available for the employment of any United States
individual civilian retained as a contractor in a country of
Central America or any foreign national retained as a
contractor if that employment would cause the total number of
individual civilian contractors employed in all countries of
Central America in support of the Merida Initiative who are
funded by United States funds to exceed 100; and
(3) none of the funds made available under this Act shall
be made available for budget support or cash payments.
(c) Exception.--The limitations contained in subsection (b)
shall not apply if the President determines that it is in the
national interest of the United States that such limitations
shall not apply and transmits to the appropriate
congressional committees a notification thereof.
SEC. 303. LIMITATION ON MONITORING.
Beginning on October 1, 2009, no surveillance-related
equipment may be transferred under this Act to any entity of
Mexico or a country of Central America unless the President
determines that the recipient country has cooperated with the
United States to ensure that such equipment will be used
principally for the purposes for which it is provided.
SEC. 304. EXEMPTION FROM PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT FORCES.
Notwithstanding section 660 of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2420; relating to the prohibition on
assistance to foreign law enforcement forces), the President
may provide assistance under title I or II if, at least 15
days before providing the assistance, the President notifies
the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate, in accordance with the procedures applicable to
reprogramming notifications pursuant to section 634A of the
Foreign Assistance Act (22 U.S.C. 2394-1), that (1) it is in
the national interest to provide such assistance, and (2) the
recipient country is making significant progress to
eliminating any human rights violations.
SEC. 305. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AUTHORITY.
(a) Assistance Under Title I.--The authority to provide
assistance under title I is in addition to any other
authority to provide assistance for Mexico.
(b) Assistance Under Title II.--The authority to provide
assistance under title I is in addition to any other
authority to provide assistance for the countries of Central
America.
[[Page 11987]]
SEC. 306. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in title I or II shall be construed to alter,
modify, or otherwise affect the provisions of the Arms Export
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) unless otherwise
specified in this Act.
TITLE IV--SUPPORT ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
SEC. 401. REPORT ON REDUCTION OF DRUG DEMAND IN THE UNITED
STATES.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) supply-side drug reduction strategies when executed
alone are not an effective way to fight the phenomenon of
illegal narcotics;
(2) the Government of Mexico has identified reduction of
United States drug demand as among the most important
contributions the United States can make to a joint strategy
to combat illicit narcotics trafficking; and
(3) the United States pledged in the United States-Mexico
October 2007 Joint Statement on the Merida Initiative, to
``intensify its efforts to address all aspects of drug
trafficking (including demand related portions)'' here in the
United States.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the measures
taken to intensify United States efforts to address United
States demand-related aspects of the drug-trafficking
phenomenon in accordance with the Joint Statement on the
Merida Initiative announced by the United States and Mexico
on October 22, 2007.
SEC. 402. REDUCTION OF SOUTHBOUND FLOW OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) much of the increased violence in Mexico is perpetrated
using firearms and ammunition smuggled illegally from the
United States into Mexico;
(2) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) has told Congress of an ``iron river of guns'' with
thousands of weapons per week illegally crossing into Mexico
from the United States;
(3) more than 90 percent of the guns confiscated yearly in
Mexico originate in the United States and approximately 40
percent of the total trafficked weapons are linked to drug
trafficking organizations;
(4) along the 2,000 mile border from Brownsville, Texas, to
San Diego, California, there are 6,700 licensed gun sellers,
but only 100 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) special agents to investigate allegations of
weapons trafficking and only 35 inspectors to ensure
compliance with United States laws;
(5) on January 16, 2008, ATF announced that it will add 25
special agents and 15 inspectors to their Project Gunrunner
along the Southwest Border. And, the ATF budget request for
fiscal year 2009 includes funding for another 12 inspectors;
and
(6) an effective strategy to combat these illegal arms
flows is a critical part of a United States contribution to a
jointly executed anti-narcotics strategy with Mexico.
(b) Project Gunrunner Initiative.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall, to the extent
amounts are made available to carry out this subsection
pursuant to paragraph (4), use such amounts for the Project
Gunrunner initiative (hereafter in this subsection referred
to as the ``initiative'') of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives to expand the resources provided to
identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals involved in
the trafficking of firearms across the United States-Mexico
border.
(2) Activities.--In carrying out paragraph (1), the
Attorney General shall--
(A) assign additional agents of the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to the area of the United
States adjacent to the United States-Mexico border to support
the expansion of the initiative;
(B) establish not fewer than 1 initiative team in each
State along the United States-Mexico border; and
(C) coordinate with the heads of other relevant federal law
enforcement agencies and State and local law enforcement
agencies to address firearms trafficking in a comprehensive
manner.
(3) Additional staff.--The Attorney General may hire
additional persons to be Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and may use such other
resources as may be necessary to adequately support, the
initiative.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this
subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Attorney General $15,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2008 through 2010.
(c) Enhanced International Cooperation.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Attorney General, in cooperation with the Secretary of State,
is authorized and encouraged, as appropriate, to--
(A) assign agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms, and Explosives to the United States mission in
Mexico, specifically in areas adjacent to the United States-
Mexico border, to work with Mexican law enforcement agencies
in conducting investigations relating to firearms trafficking
and other criminal enterprises;
(B) provide the equipment and technological resources
necessary to support investigations and to trace firearms
recovered in Mexico; and
(C) support the training of vetted Mexican law enforcement
officers in serial number restoration techniques and canine
explosive detection.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--To carry out this
subsection, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Attorney General $9,500,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008
through 2010.
SEC. 403. REDUCTION OF SOUTHBOUND FLOW OF ILLEGAL PRECURSOR
CHEMICALS AND BULK-CASH TRANSFERS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) a significant quantity of precursor chemicals used in
the production of illegal narcotics flows south from the
United States to Mexico;
(2) the Government of Mexico has identified reduction of
southbound flows from the United States of precursor
chemicals and bulk-cash transfers as a critical component of
its anti-narcotics strategy; and
(3) an effective strategy to combat these illegal flows is
a critical part of a United States contribution to a jointly
executed anti-narcotics strategy with Mexico.
SEC. 404. REPORT.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President shall transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a report on the measures taken to
combat the southbound flow of illegal precursor chemicals and
bulk cash transfers into Mexico.
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. COORDINATOR OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
TO IMPLEMENT THE MERIDA INITIATIVE.
(a) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that the
Merida Initiative is a Department of State-led initiative
which combines programs of numerous United States Government
departments and agencies and therefore requires a single
individual to coordinate and track all Merida-related efforts
government-wide to help avoid duplication and facilitate
accountability to Congress.
(b) Designation of High-Level Coordinator.--
(1) In general.--The President shall designate, within the
Department of State, a Coordinator of United States
Government Activities to Implement the Merida Initiative
(hereafter in this section referred to as the
``Coordinator'') who shall be responsible for--
(A) designing an overall strategy to advance the purposes
of this Act;
(B) ensuring program and policy coordination among agencies
of the United States Government in carrying out the policies
in Mexico and Central America set forth in this Act;
(C) ensuring that efforts of the United States Government
under this Act in Mexico and Central America are in full
consonance with the efforts of the Government of Mexico and
the governments of Central America in implementing the Merida
Initiative;
(D) tracking all United States Government assistance which
fulfills the goals of the Merida Initiative or is closely
related to the goals of the Merida Initiative, including
information required under section 620J of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2378d) with respect to
Mexico and the countries of Central America;
(E) coordinating among agencies of the United States
Government on all United States assistance to Mexico and the
countries of Central America, including assistance from other
relevant government agencies, which fulfills the goals of the
Merida Initiative to avoid duplication or conflict among
programs; and
(F) consulting with the Attorney General with respect to
the activities of Federal, State, and local law enforcement
authorities in the United States related to the goals of the
Merida Initiative, particularly along the United States-
Mexico border.
(2) Rank and status of the coordinator.--The Coordinator
shall have the rank and status of ambassador.
SEC. 502. METRICS AND OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) to successfully support building the capacity of
recipient countries' civilian security institutions, enhance
the rule of law in recipient countries, and ensure the
protection of human rights, the President should establish
metrics and oversight mechanisms to track the effectiveness
of activities undertaken pursuant to this Act;
(2) long-term solutions to Mexico and Central America's
security problems depend on strengthening and holding
accountable civilian institutions;
(3) it is difficult to assess the impact of United States
assistance towards these goals absent specific oversight and
monitoring mechanisms; and
(4) the President, in developing metrics, should consult
with Congress as well as the Government of Mexico and the
Central American Integration System (SICA).
[[Page 11988]]
(b) Requirement.--The President shall develop metrics to
identify, track, and manage the progress of activities
authorized pursuant to this Act and use these metrics to
determine the allocation of resources for such activities.
(c) Initial Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to
the appropriate congressional committees a report that
specifies metrics of achievement for each activity to be
undertaken under this Act.
(2) Contents of report.--The report shall be divided into
two sections, the first addressing those activities
undertaken pursuant to subtitle A of title I and subtitle A
of title II, and the second addressing those activities
undertaken pursuant to subtitle B of title I and subtitle B
of title II. Metrics may include the following:
(A) Indicators on long-term effectiveness of the equipment
and training provided to Mexican and Central American
security institutions.
(B) Statistics of counter narcotics-related arrests.
(C) Number of interdictions of drug shipments.
(D) Specific progress on police reform.
(E) Counternarcotics-related arrests.
(F) Quantification of reduction of supply of illicit
narcotics into the United States.
(G) Cross-utilization, if any, of equipment among the armed
forces and law enforcement entities.
(H) Increased school attendance rates.
(I) Attendance in primary prevention programs.
(J) The level of cooperation among United States, Mexican,
and Central American law enforcement agencies.
SEC. 503. REPORT.
(a) In General.--The President shall transmit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report concerning the
programs and activities carried out under this Act during the
preceding fiscal year. The first report shall be transmitted
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act and subsequent reports shall be transmitted not
later than October 31 of each year thereafter.
(b) Matters to Be Included.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall include the following:
(1) Metrics.--A general description of the progress in
stabilizing the security situation in each recipient country
as well as combating trafficking and building its capacity
based on the metrics developed under section 502.
(2) Coordination.--Efforts of the United States Government
to coordinate its activities pursuant to section 501,
including--
(A) a description of all counternarcotics and organized
crime assistance provided to recipient countries in the
previous fiscal year;
(B) an assessment of how such assistance was coordinated;
and
(C) recommendations for improving coordination.
(3) Transfer of equipment.--A description of the transfer
of equipment, including--
(A) a description of the progress of each recipient country
toward the transfer of equipment, if any, from its armed
forces to law enforcement agencies;
(B) a list of organizations that have used the air assets
provided to the government of each recipient country, and, to
the extent possible, a detailed description of those agencies
that have utilized the air assets, including a breakdown of
the percentage of use by each agency; and
(C) a description of training of law enforcement agencies
to operate equipment, including air assets.
(4) Human rights.--Consistent with sections 116(d) and
502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2151n(d) and 2304(b)) and section 504 of the Trade Act of
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2464), an assessment of the human rights
impact of the equipment and training provided under this Act,
including--
(A) a list of accusations of serious human rights abuses
committed by the armed forces and law enforcement agencies of
recipient countries from the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(B) a description of efforts by the government of recipient
countries to investigate and prosecute allegations of abuses
of human rights committed by any agency of the recipient
countries.
(5) Effectiveness of equipment.--An assessment on the long-
term effectiveness of the equipment and maintenance packages
and training provided to each recipient country's security
institutions.
(6) Mexico public security strategy.--A description of
Mexico's development of a public security strategy,
including--
(A) an update on the effectiveness of the Mexican federal
Registry of Police Personnel to vet police recruiting at the
National, state, and municipal levels to prevent rehiring
from one force to the next after dismissal for corruption and
other reasons; and
(B) an assessment of how the Merida Initiative complements
and supports the Mexican Government's own public security
strategy.
(7) Flow of illegal arms.--A description of efforts to
reduce the southbound flow of illegal arms.
(8) Use of contractors.--A detailed description of
contracts awarded to private companies to carry out
provisions of this Act, including--
(A) a description of the number of United States and
foreign national civilian contractors awarded contracts;
(B) a list of the total dollar value of the contracts; and
(C) the purposes of the contracts.
(9) Central american regional security plan.--A description
of implementation by the countries of Central America of the
Central American Regional Security Plan, including an
assessment of how the Merida Initiative complements and
supports the Central American Regional Security Plan.
(10) Phase out of law enforcement activities.--A
description of the progress of phasing out law enforcement
activities of the armed forces of each recipient country.
(11) Displacement and diversion of drug trafficking
patterns.--A description of any displacement effect and
diversion of drug trafficking patterns from Mexico and the
countries of Central America to other routes, including
through potentially vulnerable Caribbean countries.
(12) Impact on border violence and security.--A description
of the impact that activities authorized under this Act have
had on violence against United States and Mexican border
personnel and the extent to which these activities have
increased the protection and security of the United States-
Mexico border.
SEC. 504. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States Government requires an effective
public diplomacy strategy to explain the purposes of the
Merida Initiative; and
(2) to the extent practicable, the Secretary of State, in
coordination with other relevant heads of agencies, shall
design and implement a public diplomacy campaign regionally
regarding the Merida Initiative.
SEC. 505. SUNSET.
The authority of this Act shall expire after September 30,
2010.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and
yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the drug crisis facing the United States remains a top
national security threat. The GAO states that 90 percent of illegal
drugs entering our country transit the Central American-Mexican
corridor.
Drug gangs that operate in the United States, Mexico, and Central
America are dangerously undermining the security environment for our
neighbors to the south, and the spillover effects on our own soil are
undeniable.
President Calderon of Mexico made a brave decision early in his
presidency to fight illegal narcotics in a way that no Mexican
government had done before, and he and his countrymen have paid a high
price for it. Drug cartels have been blamed for 6,000 deaths in two-
and-a-half years in Mexico alone, 4,000 of them in the year-and-a-half
since Mr. Calderon assumed the presidency.
A significant percentage of these deaths are law enforcement
personnel, outgunned and outspent from the proceeds of illegal drugs.
There seems to be no limit to the brazenness of the drug gangs. A month
ago, the chief of Mexico's Federal police was shot dead in his own
home.
It is high time for the United States to do more than applaud
President Calderon's courage. We must work together to tackle this
difficult problem.
President Bush and President Calderon met in the Mexican city of
Merida last year to craft a new and innovative proposal to confront
this scourge. That proposal is largely reflected in the legislation we
have before us today.
[[Page 11989]]
The central tenet of this bill is that, while the violence must stop
and security must be restored, the ultimate solution to this problem
lies in respect for the rule of law and the strength of institutions
charged with upholding it.
{time} 1145
H.R. 6028 represents the U.S. implementation of a new partnership
with Mexico and Central American countries to face the immediate
security threat of drug gangs, help these neighbors build the capacity
of their law enforcement agencies, and enhance the rule of law in the
region.
As many of my colleagues know, the supplemental appropriations bill
includes funding for year one of the Merida Initiative, but the
legislation before us today authorizes the full 3 years of this plan in
an exhaustive and complete manner necessary to undertake this critical
partnership with our southern neighbors.
For example, this legislation authorizes $1.6 billion over 3 years in
the areas of counter-narcotics, the fight against organized crime, law
enforcement modernization, institution building, and rule of law
support.
Mexico has requested that the U.S. provide certain high-tech
equipment. And in this bill we authorize transport helicopters with
night operating capabilities, aerial and radar surveillance equipment,
land and maritime interdiction equipment, and secure communication
networks.
This legislation supports a variety of programs designed to enhance
the transparency and capacity of civilian institutions at the Federal,
State and local level. They include assistance in courts management,
prison reform, money laundering capabilities, witness protection, and
police professional-
ization. The latter emphasizes human rights and use of force training,
as well as forensics and polygraph capabilities.
In the realm of prevention, the bill supports programs to increase
school attendance and expansion of intervention programs. It also seeks
to promote development in areas where joblessness feeds the narcotics
problem, including alternative livelihood and rural development
efforts.
It concentrates considerable funding in the fragile Central America
region, as well as in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, in programs
tailored to that region's specific needs.
The legislation contains significant human rights safeguards as well
as end-use monitoring provisions for equipment and training. It
provides no cash transfers.
It calls on the President to devise standards up front that will be
used to measure the success of the initiative, and to regularly report
to Congress on progress made toward meeting these standards.
Significantly, because this was a specific request from our Mexican
neighbors, the legislation bolsters by $73.5 million America's efforts
to stem the illegal flow of arms going south by significantly expanding
ATF's Project Gun Runner.
Finally, the bill establishes a coordinator for the initiative to
provide accountability and harmonize its wide-ranging programs.
Perhaps most importantly the legislation recognizes that the spread
of illicit drugs through Mexico and Central America and into the United
States, as well as the violence that accompanies it, cannot be halted
without a comprehensive interdiction and security strategy planned and
executed jointly with our southern neighbors. Madam Speaker, with this
authorization of the Merida Initiative we demonstrate our Nation's
commitment to work closely with our friends and neighbors to the south
in a meaningful and long-term fashion to battle illegal narcotics.
I strongly urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise as a proud cosponsor of the Merida Initiative
to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Authorization
Act of 2008.
Based on co-responsibility and cooperation, the Merida Initiative
creates an invaluable partnership between the United States, Mexico,
the rest of Central America, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic to work
together to fight illicit drugs and organized crime. It is a historic
opportunity, an essential collaboration between all of our countries to
present a united front against the drug cartels and the gangs who
callously threaten the safety and future of our communities every day.
The growing operational and financial capabilities of these groups
pose a clear and present threat to the lives and well-being of our
citizens. By supporting this authorization, we are supporting the goals
of the Merida Initiative to confront these dangers. Furthermore, we are
supporting the goals of our friends in Mexico, Central America, Haiti
and the Dominican Republic to combat these dangers as well.
The Merida Initiative, as considered under this authorization, is a
comprehensive program focused on strengthening democratic institutions,
on bolstering law enforcement capabilities, on supporting local
communities, and on promoting human rights at all levels of the
Initiative's implementation.
For years, drug traffickers and organized crime have used a regional
strategy to carry out their illicit activities. Now, under the Merida
Initiative, we have a chance for our governments to join forces and
match this transnational approach. In Mexico, President Calderon has
deployed nearly 30,000 soldiers and federal police to the country's
most dangerous drug trafficking hotspots.
In Guatemala, the government has announced plans to send hundreds of
troops, elite presidential guards and antidrug police to its northern
border to stem the growing violence.
In the United States, our law enforcement agents have been met with
increasing hostile actions while working to preserve the security of
our borders.
The Merida Initiative enables us to combine all of these efforts to
capitalize on all of our strength and confront narcotraffickers and
organized crime with the same determination that they so vigorously
employ to wreak havoc on our communities.
I was pleased to see that both the House and Senate versions of the
supplemental included funding to support the Merida Initiative. I am
hopeful that the conferees will look at this bill for direction when
determining the final face of the Merida Initiative. I believe that it
offers an effective guide for ensuring U.S. interest, while respecting
our partners' sovereignty.
For too long, narcotraffickers and organized crime have run free,
plaguing the prosperity of our region. By supporting the Merida
Initiative, we are making the way for democracy and for development to
take hold, and addressing the precursor conditions that help breed
instability in the region, and that help create fertile territory even
for Islamic extremist recruitment.
Madam Speaker, again I rise in full support of this initiative, and I
look forwarding to helping to enhance our Nation's security by fighting
and overcoming these daily threats.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the gentlelady's
strong comments on this bill.
I yield 4 minutes to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee
on Western Hemisphere Affairs, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
6028. And I would like to commend Chairman Berman for his leadership on
this important legislation that authorizes full funding for the Merida
Initiative.
In my subcommittee, as Chair, we held three hearings on the Merida
Initiative, so we've covered it really quite extensively. And I'm more
convinced than ever that this is such an important bill and such an
important proposal.
Recent events in Mexico make the Merida Initiative more crucial than
ever. Just last month, the chief of the Mexican federal police was
brutally murdered at his home. Shortly thereafter, the deputy police
chief of Ciudad
[[Page 11990]]
Juarez, a city smack on the border with the United States, was shot
dead.
The narcoviolence in Mexico is not only undermining the safety and
security of our friends to the south, but it is fueling the drug trade
and violence here in the United States.
As Western Hemisphere Subcommittee chairman, I worked with Chairman
Berman in developing this legislation and was pleased to contribute two
key parts. First, the Central American piece of this legislation
authorizes a much greater amount of assistance for the subregion than
the Bush administration proposed. The initial $50 million for Central
America was really a drop in the bucket when you look at the whole
thing and the needs that are necessary, especially considering that 90
percent of the cocaine shipped from the Andes to the U.S. flows right
through Central America.
H.R. 6028 sets aside at least $15 million per year for youth gang
prevention programs. That was something that I care very much about as
well. With approximately 70,000 gang members in Central America, and
the transnational connections linking gang members there to the United
States, this is a vast improvement over the administration's proposal.
I hope we have learned by now that failing to adequately invest in
prevention programs will only hurt us in the future.
I was also pleased to work with the chairman on a provision in H.R.
6028 which establishes a Merida coordinator at the State Department. My
staff and I have too often been frustrated by the inability to obtain
information on Merida activities or to figure out who was responsible
for what, and what would fall under Merida. The Merida coordinator will
keep track of all U.S. government assistance, which fulfills the goals
of the Merida Initiative.
Madam Speaker, the Merida Initiative is moving on two legislative
tracks; this authorization bill, and the supplemental appropriations
bill. I understand that the Mexican Government has expressed concerns
with certain language in the Senate supplemental proposal. It is my
hope that the final product will include important human rights
provisions while respecting Mexican sovereignty and the spirit of
partnership in which the Merida Initiative was designed. Our
relationship with our neighbors to the south is very important, and we
need to work with them in a collaborative way and in a partnership.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for your leadership on this important
legislation and your commitment to the governments and people of
Central America and Mexico.
I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation. And I want
to again say that it's important not only to have funds in there and
language in there for Mexico, but for Central America, Haiti and the
Dominican Republic as well.
It's also important that we look at the whole situation of guns. Guns
that are manufactured in the United States are smuggled over the
border, and 90 percent of the guns that are collected come from the
United States. And they fuel narcotrafficking, they fuel violence, they
fuel the drug trade, and we need to do something about that. So I am
pleased that my provision, the Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act,
was incorporated into this language to look at this problem, to deal
with this problem, and understanding that what we do in the United
States goes hand in hand with what happens south of our border as well.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I thank the ranking member, with
whom I've collaborated on so many things through the years.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot). He is an esteemed member of our
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. Let me just start by saying that I
appreciate both the chairman's and the ranking member's work on this
critical issue. Drugs and cartels and the violence and terror that they
bring not only undermine public safety but threaten our security as a
Nation. We need to work cooperatively with those nations that are on
the front lines of this drug war that we've been involved in for such a
long time.
However, I want to mention one fact that I think is very important.
Last summer, news reports highlighted the unwillingness of the Mexican
Government to work with the U.S. to resolve a mile and a half boundary
dispute near Columbus, New Mexico. Because of a mapping error, the
fence that we're building was constructed on Mexican land. Although the
U.S. government promptly notified the Mexican Government of the error,
the Mexican Government demands that the mistake be corrected at a cost
of $3 million to the United States; this, despite the fact that the
previously existing boundary had never been in dispute prior to
notification by the U.S., and the fact that the U.S. has provided more
than $270 million in aid to Mexico between 2004 and 2007, including
more than $140 million for counter-narcotics and law enforcement.
Today, we are authorizing funding for an additional $1.6 billion over
3 years. Last July, I introduced House Resolution 545, which states
that it is the sense of this Congress that if Mexico doesn't work
together to resolve this boundary dispute, U.S. assistance to Mexico
should be reduced in a corresponding amount; in other words, $3
million. If it is costing the taxpayers of this country $3 million to
do this, which was previously an undisputed border area, it seems like
it ought to come out of their money and not ours, since we were the
ones that brought it to their attention to begin with.
{time} 1200
Now, some people up here in Washington may think that $3 million
isn't a lot of money. Well I can tell you it is a lot of money to the
folks back in my district and districts all over this country,
particularly when you figure that we are spending approximately $4 a
gallon for gas nowadays. So it is a lot of money and ought to be taken
seriously.
If the U.S. and Mexico are truly partners, and we claim to be, and
they claim to be, we should be working together in all areas, including
the construction of this fence. We ought to be working cooperatively in
this matter. And it plays a key role in our international interdiction
efforts, not to mention the border security.
So this $3 million, if we are going to have to go back and rebuild
this because of this good faith error, I believe that ought to be taken
out of the U.S. aid which is going in their direction, and not from the
U.S. taxpayer.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute of time if I may.
The gentleman from Ohio raises an issue of controversy between the
United States and Mexico. What I urge the Members of this body to do is
to focus on the purpose of this initiative. This is an initiative that
is in America's deep national interest. The whole issue of illicit
narcotics trade, the role of the corridor between Central America and
Mexico in contributing and supplying these illicit narcotics, the war
going on in Mexico between the drug cartels, and a president and a
leadership that is now taking this head on serves our national
interests. Our effort to stem illegal immigration is directly
connected, and the effectiveness of it will be greatly dependent on our
ability to stop these cartels and to smash this trade in illicit
narcotics.
Whatever one's concern is about a particular aspect of the U.S.-
Mexican relationship, I would suggest from America's interest point of
view that this issue, this initiative, is a compelling one and should
be supported.
I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to chairman of the Homeland
Security Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure
Protection and a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Ms. Sheila
Jackson-Lee of Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me associate myself with the words of
our chairman. This is in the interests of the American people. I thank
Chairman Berman for introducing this legislation and the ranking
member, as
[[Page 11991]]
well, for the collaboration that our committee, the Foreign Affairs
Committee, always engages in.
I think it is important to note that this is an initiative that was
entered into by the United States and Mexico that announced a
multiyear, $1.4 billion plan to use U.S. assistance to combat drug
trafficking and other criminal organization activities. This has been
labeled the ``Merida Initiative,'' and the administration has requested
$500 million.
Some would ask why? Because we are at a crisis. And I come from the
State of Texas. There is bloodshed on the border. The violence is
enormous. The wars between drug cartels have caused some 1,800 to 1,900
deaths to Mexicans in the first 9 months of 2007. And it is
attributable to the cartel-related violence. More than 60 American
citizens have been kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo, a Mexican town directly
across the border from the city of Laredo, a fine, wonderful city. And
the mayors of those cities have come and asked for relief. But
unfortunately, it hasn't been listened to in the way that I believe it
could be. Recognizing that the violence or the cause is not Laredo or
the border towns as much as it is the violence that is now spilling
over.
So I hope as we move forward in our initiative it will have a number
of elements to it, and certainly one of the elements has to be the war
against drugs here in the United States. It is important to note that
Mexico is, in fact, the main foreign supply of marijuana and meth, and
as well even though there is a small production of heroin,
interestingly enough, they are a large producer of the heroin supply
here in United States.
And for this reason, there needs to be a number of collaborations. I
disagree, for example, with the Secretary of Homeland Security, who
says that we can't put the virtual fence at the border because he
realizes that we are being conflicted by the questions of a barrier
fence, reasonably so, because we are used to the ingress and egress of
trade in that area. And so I hope this initiative will have a balance
and recognize that we have to look at many options to secure the
border.
I want to also make mention of the fact that I am a member of the
Homeland Security Committee and will hope, as this legislation moves
forward, that we will have a collaboration with the Department of
Homeland Security with this effort. You cannot make this work unless
DHS is involved.
And I was prepared to offer an amendment that dealt with assessing
the role of the relevant United States Government departments and
agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, in supporting
the Merida Initiative, providing specific information on what staff,
equipment and other resources the relevant United States Government
departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security
would need to support this initiative, and assessing the impact of the
initiative on the border security operations of the relevant United
States Government departments and agencies.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman.
Assessing the impact of the Merida Initiative on the border security
operations of the relevant United States Government departments and
agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, and identify
additional resources, if any, that the relevant United States
Government departments and agencies, including the Department of
Homeland Security, need to make available to carry out this initiative.
I recall specifically as a member of the Subcommittee on Border
Security writing legislation and the ranking member on the Immigration
Subcommittee in our past Congresses on providing more resources for our
Border Patrol. It was interesting that the administration was always
voicing their leadership on the idea of border security, and our Border
Patrol agents were suffering. There were not enough. They didn't have
the kind of speedboats, night goggles and computers. Now you see it is
like night and day because of legislation carried by members of the
Democratic Caucus.
And so it is important that as we go forward we find a collaboration
of the Department of Homeland Security because human trafficking and
drug trafficking are intertwined. The violation of the borders is
intertwined with all we are doing here, and we need to have a
collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security. I support this
initiative, and I know it can be expanded.
I rise today in cautious support of H.R. 6028, the ``Merida
Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Act
of 2008.'' I would like to thank my colleague Congressman Berman for
introducing this legislation, as well as for his ongoing leadership as
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. While I do support this
bill, I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which it was brought
to the floor today. Like many Members, I have outstanding concerns
about this legislation that have not yet been addressed, and I believe
Members should have been given the opportunity to offer amendments to
this important and far-reaching bill. I remain concerned about human
rights in the region and I believe that the United States must do far
more to address the demand for drugs in the United States, but I also
believe that this legislation represents a positive step toward
partnering with our southern neighbors to combat a problem that we
share.
Mr. Speaker, I had planned to introduce an amendment to this
legislation that will require the President to submit a report
(1) assessing the role of the relevant United States Government
departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland
Security, in supporting the Merida Initiative;
(2) providing specific information on what staffing, equipment, and
other resources the relevant United States Government departments and
agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, have provided
for the Merida Initiative;
(3) assessing the impact of the Merida Initiative on the border
security operations of the relevant United States Government
departments and agencies, including the Department of Homeland
Security; and
(4) identifying additional resources, if any, that the relevant
United States Government departments and agencies, including the
Department of Homeland Security, need to make available to carry out
the Merida Initiative.
As a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I am
cognizant of the fact that the Department of Homeland Security will
play a major role in the implementation of the Merida Initiative. Among
other things, Customs and Border Patrol will be involved in the
procurement and training of non-intrusive inspection equipment
(scanners, x-ray vans) and rescue and communications equipment, and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be involved in modernizing
Mexico's immigration database and the training of vetted units focused
on anti-gang and anti-money laundering.
In short, Mr. Speaker, the Merida Initiative will not be complete or
successful without the cooperation of the Department of Homeland
Security and the dedication of its brave men and women. The report
required by my Amendment would have made sure Congress knows what
resources DHS is contributing to the Merida Initiative and whether more
are needed. It would also have let Congress know how the Merida
Initiative is affecting DHS's ability to carry out its other missions,
including border security. As we continue to fight criminal syndicates
and terrorism organizations around the world, we must ensure that there
is accountability for our precious resources and that we are not losing
focus of the needs at home. I am extremely disappointed that this
legislation has been brought up under suspension, as I believe that my
amendment would have improved the legislation.
On October 22, the United States and Mexico, in a joint statement,
announced a multi-year, $1.4 billion plan to use U.S. assistance to
combat drug trafficking and other criminal organizations. As part of
this plan, known as the Merida Initiative, the Administration has
requested $500 million for Mexico and $50 million for Central America
in the FY 2008 Supplemental Appropriations. Since March 2007, when
Presidents George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon met in Merida, officials
of both governments, without the input of the legislative branch of
either country, have been working on an initiative to expand bilateral
and regional cooperation, in order to combat organized crime and
criminal gangs in the region.
Mexico has, in recent years, experienced an increase in drug
violence. Much of the recent
[[Page 11992]]
violence has been attributed to turf wars between drug cartels, with
between 1,800 and 1,900 deaths of Mexicans in the first nine months of
2007 alone being attributed to cartel-related violence. More than 60
American citizens have been kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo, a Mexican town
directly across the border from the city of Laredo, in my own state of
Texas. Some of this violence is reportedly spilling over the border
into the United States.
Spill-over violence and attacks on Americans are not the only reasons
Mexico's drug trade is of intimate interest to the United States.
Mexico is the main foreign supplier of marijuana and a major supplier
of methamphetamine to the United States, and, though it produces only a
small share of global heroin production, it produces a sizeable
proportion of the heroin distributed in the United States. In addition
to production of drugs, Mexico is also a major transit country.
According to State Department estimates, 90% of the cocaine entering
the United States transits through Mexico.
With the demise of powerful cartels in Colombia, Mexican drug cartels
have recently become increasingly significant. According to the
National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican cartels now dominate the
illicit U.S. drug market, using ``well-established overland
transportation networks to transport cocaine, marijuana,
methamphetamine, and heroin--Mexican and increasingly South American--
to drug markets throughout the country.'' Though Colombian groups
retain a significant share of smuggling and distribution operations in
the United States, the operations of Mexican groups continue to account
for an increasingly large percentage of the market.
Recent years have indicated that much more needs to be done to
address issues of drug production and trafficking in Mexico. While I
certainly agree that the Merida Initiative represents an important and
much needed effort, I am extremely disappointed that neither members of
the U.S. nor the Mexican congress were included in the discussion
process. In addition, I have significant concerns about the initiative
itself, and I believe there are many outstanding issues that remain to
be addressed.
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we can address the problem of drug
trafficking by combating the supply side alone. This legislation does
require the President to submit a report on efforts to reduce demand in
the United States, and I believe that this language is extremely
important, acknowledging that this is not just a foreign issue. I would
like to see this Congress take a more active role in reducing the
prevalence of drug use and addiction in our own communities, in
conjunction with working to eliminate the flow of drugs across our
borders.
Mr Speaker, it is essential that this Committee stay engaged with
this program after it is implemented, particularly monitoring its
effects on human rights. U.S. dollars absolutely should not be going to
fund abuses; they should be used to build a culture of respect for
fundamental human rights. To this end, I am pleased that this
legislation states that one of the purposes of this initiative is to
``strengthen respect for internationally recognized human rights and
the rule of law in efforts to stabilize the security environment
relating to the illicit narcotics production and trafficking and
organized crime.'' Further, this legislation restricts funding to any
units known to commit gross violations of human rights, provides
assistance for human rights training in relevant law enforcement units,
and, perhaps most crucially, requires the President to report to
Congress on the human rights impact of the equipment and training
provided in this bill. Mr. Speaker, this language is important, but
alone it is not enough, and I fully expect that this committee will
remain engaged in this important issue following the implementation of
this program.
Mr. Speaker, despite my outstanding concerns and my disappointment
over the manner in which this legislation was brought before us today,
I do believe that this legislation will strengthen the bonds of
cooperation with our southern neighbors on an important issue in which
we all share a stake. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
this legislation.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) who is also an
esteemed member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. I thank the gentlelady from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, let me say first that I support a military strategy to
deal with the drug cartels. Having come from Texas, having worked
counterterrorism with the Justice Department at the Mexican border, I
know firsthand what a direct threat to the security of this Nation
these drug cartels present. They export drugs. They poison our
children. They export human trafficking. They bring special interest
aliens into this country, some of whom are not caught. And in the post-
9/11 world, they present a threat that we can no longer ignore. And
they must be dealt with. That is why I have been supportive of this
initiative.
However, I believe that we need a strategy on this side of the
border, as well. I believe we need a two-pronged approach, if you will,
a comprehensive strategy that deals not only with the Mexican side but
with the U.S. side. And for too long, our border sheriffs and our
Border Patrol agents have been outmanned and outgunned. And if we are
going to provide assistance to Mexico, it seems to me we ought to be
providing assistance to our men and women on our side fighting this war
every day.
I had a unique opportunity to meet with President Calderon. He told
me that he is at war with the drug cartels. He is at war with these
drug cartels. And we need to fight this war against the drug cartels.
And I believe the best way to do that is provide the military
assistance, but also provide the resources necessary on this side of
our border, which is why I offered an amendment at the foreign affairs
markup of this bill to provide $1.4 billion, an equal amount, if you
will, over 3 years for our Federal, State and local law enforcement,
including the border sheriffs. And Chairman Berman was supportive of
this amendment. The chairman sits on the Judiciary Committee. It was my
sincere hope that this amendment would have been taken up by the
Judiciary Committee when they marked up this bill, as well.
Unfortunately, that didn't happen. And the Judiciary Committee
decided not to take up this bill. In addition, instead of having an
open rule whereby it could offer this amendment on the floor, we have a
closed rule, and this vote is now under suspension. I believe this is a
missed opportunity. I believe it is a missed opportunity to have a
really comprehensive bill that could have had strong bipartisan
support, that had the approach and the strategy that I just outlined, a
military strategy on the Mexican side of the border, and a beefed up
law enforcement on this side of the border. That is how we are going to
achieve true border security in this Nation. So I just wanted to
present that objection.
It is my sincere hope we can fix this and add this amendment at some
point in the process to give our law enforcement on this side of the
border the tools that they need, also, to win this war against the drug
cartels.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), an esteemed member of the Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. POE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that the chairman and the ranking
member have done on this initiative. However, I rise in opposition to
this legislation before the House. As a former prosecutor and longtime
judge in Texas, I am concerned about drugs and violence on the border,
but I am also concerned about corruption.
According to the DEA, 500 people were murdered in Nuevo Laredo in
2005. None of those cases was solved. Many of those murdered were
police officers. There have been 400 kidnappings in Nuevo Laredo.
Forty-one of them were American citizens. None of them have been
solved.
I doubt if anyone would be surprised to find out that the drug
cartels are to blame for most of the violence on the border. What you
might be surprised to learn is that U.S.-trained Mexican forces are
behind some of the attacks. The Department of Homeland Security has
reported that in the last 10 years, there have been over 250 incursions
by suspected Mexican military units into the United States.
In order to gain control of access corridors in the United States,
drug cartels are hiring hit men from an elite force in Mexico's
military. This group
[[Page 11993]]
is known as the ``Zetas.'' It has been reported that some of the Zetas
are military deserters that may have been trained in the United States
at the former School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. Reports
claim that these forces were sent by the Mexican Government to the
United States-Mexico border to combat drug trafficking. Instead, some
of them deserted and became assassins for the Mexican drug cartels.
Officials suspect that there are more than 200 Zetas. Between January
and September of last year, nearly 5,000 Mexican soldiers deserted.
Many of them went to work for the drug cartels because they pay more
money.
The bill before the House today would authorize $1.5 billion in
money, training and equipment over the next 5 years to Mexico. Most of
that amount, more than $1 billion, would go, as I said, to Mexico. And
Mexico in its arrogance objects to any conditions we want to put on
this money. The administration can offer us no assurance that our
equipment and training won't be used against us and neither can Mexico.
These forces are violent. They kill people and are a danger to the
enforcement of our border, especially to our sheriffs. We've tried to
work with Mexico in the past to stop drug trafficking. Every new
president talks about how they are going to stop the drug trade, but it
never has worked. Why should we send $1 billion to Mexico when we have
no idea whether the goods we send will end up in the hands of corrupt
Mexican officials and be used against us? Rather than sending all this
money and equipment to Mexico and the lawless Mexican officials at the
border, we ought to be equipping United States border sheriffs who can
use this equipment to protect our homeland. We need to keep our money
on this side of the border where we need it and where we can keep up
with it.
And that's just the way it is.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways
and Means. We will miss him greatly when he retires.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important
initiative, the Merida Initiative, to combat illicit narcotics and
reduce organized crime authorization legislation. I commend Chairman
Berman, Chairman Engel and Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen for their work
in putting together bipartisan legislation that implements not only a
bipartisan agreement but also an international agreement with our
neighbor and our neighbors to the south.
Ladies and gentlemen, think of it in these terms, if in the last few
months the director of the FBI had been assassinated by
narcotraffickers, think about it if the head of the Drug Enforcement
Administration had been assassinated by narcotraffickers, think about
it if dozens of police chiefs were shot down in the streets and
murdered in their homes in front of their families, how would we as
Americans react?
{time} 1215
Would we ask for help and want every resource we could put in place
to go after those who committed those horrible crimes?
Ladies and gentlemen, in Mexico, our friend, our ally, our partner in
so many ways, that has been occurring, where the head of their
counternarcotics program was assassinated, where police chiefs are
being shot down, where the narcotraffickers have been so brazen they
have publicly posted signs listing police officers and police chiefs
that they intend to target for assassination, and at the same time,
saying ``come join us. We will pay you better if you are in law
enforcement today. Switch sides. You will be paid more.''
Well, today we have a President in Mexico, President Calderon, who
decided to take the fight to the narcotraffickers. He has deployed
30,000 Mexican troops against narcotraffickers throughout Mexico, for
the first time, and they have asked for our help. Both our friends in
Mexico and our friends in Central America have asked our help with this
fight.
That is why this legislation is important, because we have an
obligation to help our neighbors; because by stopping the flow of drugs
it affects other issues, policy concerns many of us have talked about.
Number one is the flow of drugs into our country. And if you care about
illegal immigration, if that has been a point you have debated on this
floor, you argued we have got to do something about illegal
immigration, well, frankly, safe streets and communities in Mexico and
Central America are vital to ensuring that families and their children
feel safe in their own communities, rather than having to leave for the
United States illegally for a safe place to live.
And if you if you care about the arguments that many have made that
narcotraffickers are crossing our borders and the Mexicans need to do
more, well, they are. Again, 30,000 Mexican troops have been deployed
against the narcotraffickers. Unfortunately, in many cases
narcotraffickers are equally or better armed than the Mexican military.
That is why this legislation is needed. That is why this legislation
needs bipartisan support. I urge bipartisan support.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, FDR made a statement about why he was
giving aid to England to fight Nazi Germany, and that statement was,
when your neighbor's home is burning, only a fool would not let them
borrow your hose to put out the fire.
Well, Mr. Speaker, our border is burning. Mexico is in flames with
violence. We are not taking on a war on drugs down at the border; we
are taking on the battle against narco-terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken a lot of positions about the fact that the
boarders are out of control, but now is the time the American people
have to wake up and this Congress has to wake up and realize that the
people in Mexico are fighting desperately for their republic. They are
being murdered in the streets. Police chiefs on the day they do a press
conference stating that they caught a cartel smuggling drugs into San
Diego County through a tunnel, the day that they do that press
conference, that night that police chief is murdered by the cartel. The
head of their law enforcement, who is comparable to our FBI, was
murdered in their capital.
You may say, but is Mexico doing enough? I have a lot of
disagreements with Mr. Calderon. The justification for ignoring the
cartel when they smuggle aliens is one of them. But the same cartel
that is smuggling aliens and drugs into the United States are killing
law enforcement and judges and politicians in Mexico.
And do not think that this is a problem far away from us. This
problem is in our front yard, in our backyard, in our lap right now.
Washington can ignore it, but they are already starting to kidnap and
kill people in San Diego County in the south. We have an obligation to
make sure that we fight this battle on Mexican soil before it becomes a
battle in the main streets of the United States.
I ask us to join now. The fact is if there is anything that we can
do, we need to defend our American freedom and our security when and
where we find the threat, and the threat today is in Mexico. Calderon
has been brave enough to export criminals to the United States. He has
judges being killed right and left down there. Mexico is willing to
work with us on this and desperately asking for our help, and only a
fool would not give them the help to fight the battle on Mexican soil
before we are fighting it on U.S. soil.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, at a time of record national debt and
deficit, at a time when gasoline prices are
[[Page 11994]]
now well over $4, when oil is over $130 a barrel and Mexico is sitting
on one of the largest oil reserves in the world, it is inexcusable, it
is intolerable for us to send one dime to the Mexican Government when
they can afford to pay for this equipment themselves.
But even more importantly than that, our southern border not secure.
We should not send a dime to Mexico until our own American law
enforcement officers have the resources they need to secure the border
once and for all; not one dime to Mexico until the American border is
secure.
I am going to call for a record vote on this bill, because we need to
defeat this legislation until our southern border is secure.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of an issue of
great importance to both the Nation and my congressional district in
south Texas.
As a life-long resident of the southern border region, America's
relationship with Mexico is of great importance to me, to my
constituents, our chambers of commerce and economic development
corporations.
For far too long, our Nation has focused its attention upon far-away
lands on the other side of the world while our relationship with our
closest of neighbors has languished. While current and past
administrations shoulder much of the blame for our history of
inattention to Mexico, Congress has been complicit in this failure.
When our Nation has needed to show compassion and understanding for
the Mexican people, this Congress has been unable to agree on a
comprehensive immigration plan befitting our American heritage. When
our Nation should be celebrating our partnership and common interests
with a close geographic ally, this Congress has literally built a wall
between ourselves and Mexico.
This is no way to treat a friend and neighbor and actually our second
largest trading partner. Although not a solution to all of the
deficiencies in our relationship with Mexico, the Merida Initiative is
a step in the right direction. Border residents are keenly aware of the
violence and dangers of the drug trade and the criminal networks that
span our continent. While based within Mexico, these criminal cartels
are an affliction of the entire continent and must be addressed through
national partnerships and cooperation.
We were there in Monterrey yesterday with a large delegation of
Members of Congress and the Senate and we heard from and had a great
dialogue with the congressmen and senators of that country. They are
the ones who are fighting this battle for us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The time of the gentleman from
Texas has expired.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. HINOJOSA. They are the ones who are at the forefront as Colombia
and other countries are bringing their drugs through Mexico, and they
are the ones who have to fight it. They are the ones who have given up
their lives. They are the ones who are helping us fight the drug
cartel.
I ask my colleagues to please join me in supporting this important
initiative.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I know we only have 1 minute
remaining, so I would like to yield myself that remaining minute to
close on our side on the Merida Initiative.
I would like to point to the testimony that was given by an official
of the Department of Homeland Security when he testified on the
importance for the United States of the Merida Initiative, because this
is not a bill for Mexico. This is not a legislative bill for Central
America. This is not for Haiti. This is not for the Dominican Republic.
This is for the United States citizens. This is to protect our homeland
from these vicious gangs and these drug dealers.
As this gentleman said, rather than simply giving money to foreign
governments, the Merida Initiative has been tailored to provide our
foreign partners with the specific tools they each need to fight
transnational organized crime and work cooperatively with us in the
United States. This is a bill that will help our communities, our
country, our national security and our children.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the committee.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee. This is my first term on the Foreign
Affairs Committee. But I am not here necessarily as a committee member.
I am here as a Member of Congress from Texas concerning the
relationship Texas has had with Mexico for generations, if not
centuries, and the relationship that we need to continue.
There is literally a battle going on in Mexico, our closest neighbor,
and there has been an effort to try and support them in their battle
with narcotics and narco-terrorism, and that is what this bill is
about.
Whatever Mexico has been doing in their country is actually
protecting those of us in Texas and California and all over the United
States, because if they slow that situation down or win that battle, it
makes our citizens and our people a lot safer.
We should help our local police even more. We should do a lot of
things. But that is a whole separate piece of legislation. What we are
talking about here is stepping up to the plate and helping a neighbor
who is our closest neighbor and one who is in the middle of a war and
losing police chiefs, law enforcement officers, the military. Whatever
they do in their own country to take care of thisi problem will make us
safer in our own.
There are some concerns about human rights, and I want to address
that, but I would hope we would address it with members of Congress
from Mexico. When I met with those members from both the Senate and the
Chamber of Deputies in Mexico, they were concerned about some of the
human rights violations in our country. We have to share that
information and work with each other. Again, we are not moving, Mexico
is not moving, and we need to make sure we work as a partnership with
Mexico in their efforts to control their own country.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an exchange of
letters between the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary and myself.
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2008.
Hon. Howard L. Berman,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Berman: This is to advise you that, as a
result of your working with us to make appropriate revisions
to provisions in H.R. 6028, the Merida Initiative to Combat
Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Authorization
Act of 2008, that fall within the rule X jurisdiction of the
Committee on the Judiciary, we are able to agreed to
discharging our committee from further consideration of the
bill in order that it may proceed without delay to the House
floor for consideration.
The Judiciary Committee takes this action with the
understanding that by forgoing further consideration of H.R.
6028 at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over
subject matter contained in this similar legislation. We also
reserve the right to seek appointment of an appropriate
number of conferees to any House-Senate conference involving
this important legislation, and request your support if such
a request is made.
I would appreciate your including this letter in the
Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the
House floor. Thank you for your attention to this request,
and for the cooperative relationship between our two
committees.
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman.
[[Page 11995]]
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2008.
Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R.
6028, the Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and
Reduce Organized Crime Authorization Act of 2008.
I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this
legislation. I recognize that the bill contains provisions
that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the
Judiciary. I acknowledge that the Committee will not seek a
sequential referral of the bill and agree that the inaction
of your Committee with respect to the bill does not waive any
jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee over subject matter
contained in this bill or similar legislation.
Further, as to any House-Senate conference on the bill, I
understand that your committee reserves the right to seek the
appointment of conferees for consideration of portions of the
bill that are within the Committee's jurisdiction.
I will ensure that our exchange of letters is included in
the Congressional Record during the consideration of House
debate on H.R. 6028, and I look forward to working with you
on this important legislation. If you wish to discuss this
matter further, please contact me or have your staff contact
my staff.
Cordially,
Howard L. Berman,
Chairman.
I urge very strongly, don't make the best the enemy of the better.
This is a very important proposal for the American people, for our
interests. Yes, more police here, more Border Patrol, better
technology, better employer verification. But understand what is going
on in Mexico. This is a compelling initiative for our interests.
I urge an ``aye'' vote.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
H.R. 6028, the Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce
Organized Crime Authorization Act of 2008. H.R. 6028 creates a
foundation for future cooperation in assisting our neighbors to the
south in combating the rise of organized crime.
This legislation is a good starting point but much more work will
need to be done, including significant transnational and interagency
cooperation, in order to ensure the success of the Merida Initiative. I
was disappointed that the House Homeland Security Committee was not
included in the development of this bill, despite the fact that the
Department of Homeland Security will play a large role in the
Initiative by coordinating its agencies that are already assisting
Mexico and other foreign governments to address smuggling, trafficking
and violence on our borders.
Last week the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and
Global Counterterrorism, which I have the privilege of chairing, had a
hearing entitled ``The Merida Initiative: Examining U.S. Efforts to
Combat Transnational Criminal Organizations.'' This hearing highlighted
the importance of the Merida Initiative in stemming the growing
transnational crime in the United States and on our borders. For
example, in my home district in Orange County, CA, gang violence is on
the rise as a result of the huge presence of the largest transnational
gang in the United States, Mara Salvatrucha, in Los Angeles County. It
is reported that there are over 900 members of Mara Salvatrucha in Los
Angeles County, and many of these gang members are in the United States
illegally. The rise of this type of gang in the United States can be
linked to a practice by many of the drug cartels of ``contracting out''
drug, ammunition, and weapon smuggling activities to these gang
members. The Homeland Security hearing emphasized that many agencies,
including the Department of Homeland Security will need to work
together closely to stop these growing transnational crime networks.
H.R. 6028 must ensure interagency cooperation within the United
States in order to succeed abroad with the foreign governments we seek
to assist. As I stated earlier, much more needs to be done in order to
help stem the violence along the U.S. and Mexican border, but this bill
helps build the necessary foundation. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill and to help ensure further cooperation between the key
departments involved in its implementation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly in opposition to this
bill.
I applaud the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, my
friend and colleague Congressman Berman, for asserting the role of the
Congress and making sure that new initiatives such as the Merida
Initiative are authorized. It is the right thing to do, and I look
forward to working with him over the coming weeks on a number of
foreign policy matters pending before the Committee.
There is much to support in H.R. 6028, and there are also several
troubling matters.
Regarding the provisions of the bill that deal with Central America--
a region of Latin America that is very close to my heart--I believe
H.R. 6028 takes several important steps forward, seriously investing in
community-based solutions to youth and gang problems. H.R. 6028
provides strong support to non-security programs that address the
endemic conditions giving rise to violence related to drugs, arms and
human trafficking. It provides support for the U.N. International
Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), especially in the
areas of witness and victim protection, an initiative that merits the
very strongest support by the United States and the international
community. The bill also seeks to promote transparency and an end to
impunity throughout Central America by strengthening police and
judicial systems so that they may more effectively and successfully
carry out investigations and prosecutions of those responsible for
human rights violations and other criminal acts.
This is all very good news, Mr. Speaker.
I am very concerned that this authorizing bill fails, however, to
reflect the thoughtful and critically important human rights conditions
contained in the Senate and House versions of the FY 2008 supplemental
appropriations on military and security-related aid to Mexico. I
understand that those proposed conditions are controversial in Mexico,
in large measure because of the history of the very problematic drug
certification process that existed in the past. I do not believe that
the human rights conditions included in the supplemental appropriations
bill bear any resemblance to the flawed drug certification process, and
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees took great care not to
mirror that flawed certification process.
By failing to include the conditions on aid provided for the Merida
Initiative that are included in the Senate and House supplemental
appropriations bills, passage of this authorizing measure could be
viewed as an effort to weaken or eliminate those provisions from the
final conference report on the supplemental that will soon be sent to
the President for his signature. It is my sincere (hope that this is
not the intention of bringing H.R. 6028 to the House floor at such a
delicate moment. There was no reason to rush this bill before the
House, since we know it has no counterpart on the Senate side. So its
consideration today invites concern that its passage is indeed an
attempt to influence conference negotiations on the supplemental and to
send a message that human rights conditions are not welcome, and
certainly not the stronger, more specific conditionality included in
the Senate version of the FY08 supplemental appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that America wants to be a good
partner with Mexico on fighting drugs and ending corruption and human
rights violations within Mexico's judicial system and its military and
police. Over the past several weeks we have all seen the effects of the
bloody rampage carried out by the drug cartels, especially those
targeted at assassinating key officers and members of the Mexican
National Police. I hope in other legislation that may come before the
House this year that we will pay special attention to investing in drug
education, prevention and treatment programs, as well as our own law
enforcement agencies, so that U.S. demand for illegal drugs will also
be forcefully and substantially addressed.
But we cannot simply write blank checks and fail to ensure that our
aid is not subject to strong conditions on human rights, transparency,
justice reform and promoting and protecting the rights of civil
society. These concerns are very much at the forefront of the strong
Senate conditions in the FY08 appropriations bill, and are also
reflected in the slightly less stringent House conditions. They should
have been included in H.R. 6028, the authorizing legislation, which is
where human rights conditionality appropriately belongs.
So, Mr. Speaker, these are my concerns and my hopes regarding H.R.
6028, and I will be following closely the consequences of authorizing
and appropriating these funds.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H.R. 6028.
With our economy facing serious, mounting challenges, and Americans
facing unprecedented energy prices, I cannot support sending money to
Mexico and Central America to take up the fight on drug trafficking.
As Mexico currently profits from the sale of oil on the world market
as gas prices continue to skyrocket, I seriously question why we would
send their government any aid to fight this battle. Think about it: gas
is so much less expensive in Mexico that border area citizens from this
country are going there to fill up.
[[Page 11996]]
Our own borders remain porous, illegal immigration strains our
economy, and Americans are vulnerable to terrorists slipping into our
country: fighting Mexico's war on drugs, and essentially securing
Mexico's southern border, should not be at the top of our list of
priorities right now.
While sending aid to fight criminal behavior and drug trafficking
abroad is laudable in theory, given the current economic hardships
Americans face, I simply cannot support this bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Workforce Protections
Subcommittee, I join U.S. and international labor organizations in
their strong concern about this bill.
As introduced, the bill goes a long way to improve upon the
President's request. The human rights protections have been
strengthened, but must be further improved.
We must ensure that before any agreement is authorized and funded,
the most basic human and labor rights have been guaranteed.
I have strong concerns about abuses committed by Mexican and some of
the Central American law enforcement agencies.
Labor activists and community leaders have been harassed, arrested,
and physically assaulted. Many live in fear for themselves and for
their families.
I am concerned that these same law enforcement officials will be
receiving military-style training, transportation, and weapons. Do we
want to be putting military helicopters and weaponry in their hands?
We must proceed with extreme caution on this proposal. I will have to
oppose the legislation in its current form. I hope that we will be able
to address the concerns of human and labor rights leaders here at home
and in the Merida nations when the bill is in conference with the
Senate version.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss HR
6028, ``The Merida Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce
Organized Crime Authorization Act of 2008.'' This bill would fund,
train and equip Mexican security forces that would help prevent the
trafficking of guns and drugs over the U.S.-Mexico border. I will vote
for this bill, but I have some concerns about the Merida Initiative.
By supporting the Merida Initiative, the United States demonstrates
its commitment to prevent the illegal importation of guns and drugs by
partnering with Mexican and Central American governments. This
initiative benefits the larger battle against organized crime, prevents
drugs from hitting American cities and counties, and stymies gang
violence from spilling over the border.
I believe that Congress must ensure our money is being used to
prevent illegal materials from coming over the border. We have a
responsibility to protect American citizens from drugs and violence.
However, we also have a responsibility to make sure the money we
appropriate for foreign governments is not directly or indirectly
leading to human rights violations. Human rights abuses cannot and
should not be perpetrated by personnel trained using American dollars.
I applaud Chairman Berman and the Foreign Affairs Committee for placing
restrictions on the uses of this money and firmly support
investigations into reports of human right abuses in countries
receiving Merida Initiative funding.
Human rights violations have been reported in Mexico but are
insufficiently investigated. A constituent of mine, Brad Will, a
journalist for the Downtown Express, was murdered while on assignment
in Mexico. The suspected gunmen were local officials. Tragically, his
family is still waiting for justice. While we must protect our own
citizens from guns and drugs, we must exercise the necessary oversight
to ensure that this funding is used appropriately.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Merida
Initiative to Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime
Authorization Act in order to demonstrate my support for a more
proactive approach to the problems of drug addiction and trafficking,
weapons smuggling, and gang violence. Only through a re-envisioning of
drug policy from the ground up can our Nation make new progress in
combating illegal narcotics trafficking.
I am pleased to see that the Democratic leadership and Judiciary
Committee have added revolutionary and evolutionary measures to fight
these crimes. No longer will this Congress fight only the effects of
the drug trade. Instead, we will work alongside our Central American
and Mexican allies to fight its causes as well.
I strongly feel that with the passage of the Merida Initiative to
Combat Illicit Narcotics and Reduce Organized Crime Authorization Act,
we can begin to work alongside our southern allies to combat all levels
of drug addiction and trafficking, from preventing youth involvement in
these crimes to punishing those who foster them.
For example, with a new emphasis on evidence preservation, increased
polygraph capabilities, and custody reform, our allies can streamline
their policing efforts, allowing for a more focused campaign.
However, new enforcement capabilities are not enough. The bill's
purpose is possible only with its inclusion of after-school programs
and programs for at-risk and criminally-involved youth. Gang
reeducation and training for CONADIC and other agency staff in best
practices and outreach are essential to reducing demand. These programs
are the harbingers of our message and the most potent enforcers of our
goals.
We must no longer approach our war against illegal narcotics from a
reactive standpoint, but must instead work closely with Mexican and
Central American authorities to combat the spawning points of these
tribulations. Through a more nuanced set of policies, our allies can
begin to employ the same successful strategies in their states that we
have been using here at home.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 6028
and the program it would authorize, Merida Initiative. I would like to
thank Chairman Berman for his efforts to ensure that the Merida
Initiative received proper Congressional input, as well as his efforts
to include human rights protections. I was disheartened once again,
last year, when President Bush developed the Initiative without
Congressional input or any regard for the well-documented human rights
abuses of the Mexican military and law enforcement. However, to address
these problems successfully, it will be necessary to address the
problem of drug production in Mexico and South America, to address the
problem of drug consumption here in the United States, and to stem drug
trafficking between the United States and our neighbors to the south.
The Merida Initiative does none of these.
Time and again, research has demonstrated that illicit drug
production in developing countries stems from pervasive rural poverty
and lack of sustainable sources of income. H.R. 6028 falls woefully
short of supporting programs that address these issues. The vast
majority of authorized funds will go toward equipment and training for
military and law enforcement operations; funding for prevention and
development programs will come from a much smaller authorization that
competes with certain law enforcement initiatives and judicial reforms.
Similarly, research teaches us that drug use in America stems from
poverty, lack of access to basic needs, and other psychosocial
stressors. Again, H.R. 6028 will accomplish nothing to reduce drug
demand in the United States. H.R. 6028 authorizes no money for demand
reduction. In fact, H.R. 6028 only requires the President to submit a
report on the measures taken to intensify efforts to address our
Nation's demand-related aspects of drug trafficking.
Moreover, interdiction efforts that address exclusively the
trafficking aspect of the drug problem have little effect. Most often,
the consequence of such intervention is an increase in price and
slightly diminished amount of drugs in circulation, which does almost
nothing to reduce demand. Enterprising drug dealers will find a way to
get their product into the hands of users, and users struggling with
addiction will go to extreme ends to get their fix.
More money for guns and other tools of destruction will do nothing to
ease the suffering of those struggling with addiction or alleviate the
social problems that compel people to produce and/or traffic drugs. For
those reasons, I cannot support this bill.
Mr. BERMAN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6028, 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. POE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
[[Page 11997]]
____________________
{time} 1230
MARKING THE 225TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TREATY OF PARIS OF 1783
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 1063) marking the 225th anniversary of the Treaty
of Paris of 1783, which ended the Revolutionary War with the Kingdom of
Great Britain and recognized the independence of the United States of
America, and acknowledging the shared values and close friendship
between the peoples and governments of the United States and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1063
Whereas the United States will celebrate this year the
225th anniversary of its relationship with the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland since the September 3,
1783 signing of the Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the
American Revolutionary War between the Kingdom of Great
Britain and the United States of America;
Whereas both the United Kingdom and the United States are
free and democratic nations with a common commitment to human
rights and the rule of law;
Whereas the United Kingdom is a major ally of the United
States and 2008 marks the 50th anniversary of the US-UK
Mutual Defense Agreement that was signed in Washington, DC,
on July 3, 1958, and renewed in Washington, DC, on June 14,
2004;
Whereas both the United Kingdom and the United States are
founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), having been party to the North Atlantic Treaty signed
in Washington, DC, on April 4, 1949;
Whereas the United Kingdom is a major partner in the
worldwide fight against terrorism, supporting the United
States in many key armed struggles;
Whereas the United Kingdom is the second largest
contributor to the multinational force in Iraq;
Whereas the United Kingdom plays a significant role in the
military effort to bring lasting stability to Afghanistan and
is the second largest contributor to NATO's International
Security Assistance Force;
Whereas the United Kingdom and the United States share a
steadfast alliance and a long tradition of opposing
extremism, which included fighting the forces of nazism and
communism in the 20th century;
Whereas the United Kingdom is the sixth largest trading
partner of the United States, and the United States is the
largest trading partner of the United Kingdom;
Whereas the United States and the United Kingdom share the
world's largest foreign direct investment partnership, with
American investment sustaining over a million jobs in the
United Kingdom and British investment sustaining over a
million jobs in the United States;
Whereas approximately 675,000 British citizens reside in
the United States, and 155,000 Americans reside in the United
Kingdom, with both communities contributing to the fabric of
life in their host countries;
Whereas approximately 8,400 British students are currently
studying at universities in the United States, and 32,000
American students are studying at universities in the United
Kingdom; and
Whereas the relationship between the United States and the
United Kingdom is one of unity and strength, and has been
proven to be of mutual benefit: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) marks the 225th anniversary of relations between the
United States and the Kingdom of Great Britain;
(2) recognizes that the Kingdom of Great Britain's
recognition of the United States was an important event in
the history of the Nation;
(3) reaffirms the value of the deep friendship that has
developed between our two Countries since the signing of the
Treaty of Paris; and
(4) looks forward to a continued and strengthened
relationship between the British and American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative
days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous
material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
I am pleased to support this resolution that marks 225 years since
the Treaty of Paris concluded the Revolutionary War with Great Britain
and that acknowledges the close friendship enjoyed by our two countries
ever since.
I commend our distinguished colleague, Representative Wu of Oregon,
and Vice-Chair of the British-American Parliamentary Group, who
introduced this measure. It is important that the House marks this
anniversary and celebrates such a vital bipartisan partnership,
bilateral partnership also.
The Treaty of Paris was signed on September 3, 1783, formally ending
the Revolutionary War between the 13 original colonies and the Kingdom
of Great Britain. The settlement of the war and the recognition of our
young Nation by Great Britain was a moment of great significance in the
infancy of our Nation.
Two hundred twenty-five years later, the United Kingdom remains one
of our closest allies by virtue of our shared history and values. Both
the United States and the UK have proud histories of representative
democracy and respect for the rule of law.
They have also encouraged and helped many people around the world
secure the freedoms and rights their own citizens enjoy. During World
War I, the United States and the United Kingdom fought together as a
part of the allied forces against autocratic imperialism.
During World War II, again, against the Axis, our countries stood
together against the scourge of Nazism and fascism. Our brave troops
helped to liberate European countries from Nazi occupation, and
innocent civilians from the horrors of concentration camps. We talked
about the greatest generation, our World War II veterans, that we today
still admire and respect.
Throughout the 20th century, the United Kingdom has stood side-by-
side with the United States on critical issues concerning liberty and
human rights. Most recently the United Kingdom has strongly supported
the United States' effort in South Asia and the Middle East. British
soldiers are the second largest contributors to NATO's International
Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and the multinational force in
Iraq.
The United States and the United Kingdom share long histories of
industrialization, being among the first nations to develop
technologically. Both nations have a culture of intervention and
curiosity, as evidenced by the innumerable number of scientific
discoveries and inventions. This work has enhanced the frequent
collaboration between American and British researchers. We have a
tremendous bilateral system going.
Indeed, such links are often developed at an early stage as young
people take advantage of educational opportunities in each others'
countries. There are currently 8,400 British students attending
American universities and 32,000 American youth staying in the UK.
These young people know all too well the extensive cultural links
between our countries as British and American arts, music, literature,
cinema, are enjoyed on both sides of the Atlantic.
In recognition of the close bilateral relations shared by the United
States and the United Kingdom, I strongly support this resolution and
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, while the positive relationship enjoyed by the United
States and Great Britain is certainly historic, enduring and merits
recognition, and it merits nurturing, we should also be focusing our
time and debating policies to address the rising energy costs that are
facing our Nation.
Nevertheless, we have this resolution before us marking the 225th
anniversary of the Treaty of Paris of 1783 between the United States
and the
[[Page 11998]]
United Kingdom. The great British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was
the first to refer to the alliance between the United States and the
United Kingdom as a special relationship. In a speech he delivered in
1946, he was right to use that term.
The American British relationship is, indeed, special, with its
foundation lying in the common values of freedom, democracy and human
rights. Our mutual commitments to those principles have led the United
States and Great Britain to stand side by side on the beaches of
Normandy, at the Berlin wall, in the mountains of Afghanistan, and in
those the parts of Iraq where the challenges today are greatest.
The murderous terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in America,
and on July 7, 2005, in Britain, have bound America and Britain even
closer together in our determination to defeat extremism.
During his recent visit to the United States, British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown reaffirmed our strong relationship saying, ``I continue to
stand shoulder to shoulder [with the US] in the fight where freedom and
justice are at risk.''
By adopting the resolution before us, we will again recognize the
history of our special relationship with Britain, a relationship that
ironically began with the revolution of one against the other, but that
came into its full strength because of the values and the ideals that
our two people have continued to share.
Now, 225 years after the treaty of peace, in which Britain recognized
the independence of the United States of America, that alliance between
our two countries takes its guidance from the speech in 1946 in which
Mr. Churchill noted our special relationship, and here is what he said
then:
If there is to be a fraternal association . . . with all the extra
strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let
us make sure that that great fact is known to the world, and that it
plays its part in steadying and stabilizing the foundations of peace.
There is the path of wisdom.
I encourage my colleagues to join supporting this resolution which
follows Mr. Churchill's advice and lets the world know that the United
States and the United Kingdom, indeed, have a strong and continuing
relationship. I am not sure what Winston Churchill would say about
today's high energy costs, but I bet that he would have a detailed plan
to help us bring our costs down.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the
author of this resolution, Mr. David Wu of Oregon, chairman of the
Subcommittee on Science and Technology.
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his many kindnesses.
Thomas Jefferson once said that ``no two countries upon Earth have so
many points of common interest and friendship'' as the United States
and the United Kingdom. Indeed, our two nations share values,
traditions and a common commitment to democracy, human rights and the
rule of law.
I introduced House Resolution 1063 to mark the 225th anniversary of
our diplomatic relationship with the United Kingdom, which began with
the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1783. This treaty formalized the
peace between the United States and Great Britain following our
Revolutionary War.
In September of 1782, Benjamin Franklin, along with fellow peace
commissioners John Adams and John Jay, began formal negotiations for an
end to hostilities between Great Britain and the de facto independent
United States of America.
After 2 months of negotiation, Britain and France and the United
States reached a preliminary peace agreement. The following September,
the parties met in Paris and signed what would become known as the
Treaty of Paris of 1783. Since that time, Britain and the United States
have come to be friends, allies and economic partners, a relationship
that advances, enriches and inspires both sides of the Atlantic.
As with all old sayings, it is the exception which proves the rule.
For the old saying that great powers have only interests, not friends,
the relationship between the United States of America and the United
Kingdom is the exception which proves the rule.
Recently I joined several of my colleagues in Congress and with
members of the British Parliament for extensive discussions. It was a
productive and thought-provoking exchange of ideas. I believe we can
learn much from the experience of our British counterparts. One example
would be dealing with the challenge of global climate change.
I also believe our own knowledge and expertise can be of continued
value to our friends in the United Kingdom. One example of that would
be their expressed interest in the Death with Dignity Law which we
passed in the State of Oregon.
After two centuries, we can still learn from each other, prosper
together, and jointly promote a better world.
So it is fitting that we should mark with special approbation the
225th anniversary of the treaty that began our relations with the
United Kingdom as independent States. For over two centuries, our two
nations have stood together in peace and war, in prosperity and
hardship. Together we have faced two world wars, the Great Depression,
the Cold War, terrorism, and triumphs and tragedies too numerous to
recount.
Please join me in marking the genesis of our diplomatic relationship
with the United Kingdom by supporting House Resolution 1063. I thank
the Speaker of the House for the House consideration of this resolution
today, and I urge swift passage of H. Res. 1063.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, in order to close, I would like to
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to note that this 225th
anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Paris, the declaration in
that treaty of the intention of both the U.S. and the United Kingdom to
forget all past misunderstandings and differences and to secure
perpetual peace and harmony, over 200 years later these goals remain a
cornerstone to our strong relationship.
I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and reaffirm our
close ties to our dear ally, Great Britain.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me, once again, say what a great occasion
it is marking the 225th anniversary of the Treaty of Paris of 1783.
As has been indicated, we are close allies. Many of our
organizations, as a matter of fact, the YMCA, which was founded in
Great Britain in the late 1840s to take people who were coming into
London because of the Industrial Revolution in London and England found
a place where they could have a wholesome relationship. Twenty-five
years later, that organization was brought to the United States of
America. Still we have relations between them, just another example of
close ties between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1063.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order: ordering the previous
question on House Resolution 1253; adopting House Resolution 1253, if
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 6028.
[[Page 11999]]
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
{time} 1245
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6003, PASSENGER RAIL INVESTMENT AND
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1253, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 185, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 391]
YEAS--227
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
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
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
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
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
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
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
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
Yarmuth
NAYS--185
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
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
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Cubin
Cummings
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Ferguson
Fossella
Gillibrand
Green, Al
Hall (NY)
Holt
Hulshof
Lamborn
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Miller, George
Ortiz
Pickering
Rush
Tancredo
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1310
Mrs. DRAKE and Messrs. FRANKS of Arizona, KINGSTON and DOOLITTLE
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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 227,
nays 187, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 392]
YEAS--227
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
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
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
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
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
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
[[Page 12000]]
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
Young (AK)
NAYS--187
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
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
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
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)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
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)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Cubin
Cummings
Dingell
Ferguson
Fossella
Gillibrand
Green, Al
Hall (NY)
Holt
Hulshof
Marchant
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Miller, George
Ortiz
Rush
Tancredo
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1322
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.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 391 and 392, I
did not receive a page. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''
and ``yea.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I was unavoidably delayed
and missed the vote on Ordering the Previous Question (rollcall 391)
and H. Res. 1253--Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 6003--
Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (rollcall 392).
Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 391 and
rollcall 392.
____________________
MERIDA INITIATIVE TO COMBAT ILLICIT NARCOTICS AND REDUCE ORGANIZED
CRIME AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6028, as amended,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6028, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 311,
nays 106, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 393]
YEAS--311
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
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
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NAYS--106
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carney
Carson
Carter
Chabot
Clarke
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Culberson
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Ellison
Ellsworth
Everett
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Heller
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kucinich
Lamborn
Latta
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
[[Page 12001]]
McHenry
McIntyre
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore (WI)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Paul
Payne
Petri
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Thornberry
Walberg
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wittman (VA)
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--16
Costello
Cubin
Cummings
Dingell
Ferguson
Fossella
Gillibrand
Holt
Hulshof
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Rush
Speier
Tancredo
Wilson (SC)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1331
Messrs. WITTMAN of Virginia, ADERHOLT, and FORBES changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ELECTING CERTAIN MEMBERS TO CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I
offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1256
Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are
hereby, elected to the following standing committees of the
House of Representatives:
(1) Committee on agriculture.--Mr. Childers.
(2) Committee on energy and commerce.--Ms. Matsui.
(3) Committee on financial services.--Ms. Speier, Mr.
Cazayoux, Mr. Childers.
(4) Committee on science and technology.--Mr. Carson.
(5) Committee on veterans' affairs.--Mr. Cazayoux.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 332) recognizing the 60th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 332
Whereas the United Nations Charter sought to establish an
international forum to ``save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war . . ., reaffirm faith in fundamental human
rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the
equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small
. . .'';
Whereas, through manifold works of generosity, the people
of the United States exemplify a noble conviction that the
deepest yearnings of the human heart for respect and dignity
transcend political, ethnic, and religious differences;
Whereas the people of the United States continue to inspire
their leaders to prioritize endeavors which bring hope and
healing to those in need throughout the world;
Whereas the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948,
as a ``common standard of achievement for all peoples and
nations . . .'';
Whereas the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states, ``. . . recognition of the inherent dignity
and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace
in the world . . .'';
Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets
forth a common understanding of universal rights and freedoms
and the notion that these cannot be created and are neither
conferred by countries nor by governments, but rather are
inalienable rights and freedoms with which all human persons
are endowed by their very nature;
Whereas, Eleanor Roosevelt, who led the United States
delegation to the first Commission on Human Rights, was
responsible for drafting the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and in recognition of her unparalleled humanitarian
conviction, was elected as Chairwoman of the Commission;
Eleanor Roosevelt expressed her vision of a declaration of
true universality with enduring principles that would be
perpetually recognized by all nations when she stated, as she
submitted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for
consideration by the United Nations General Assembly, ``We
stand today at the threshold of a great event both in the
life of the United Nations and in the life of mankind. This
declaration may well become the international Magna Carta for
all men everywhere.''; and
Whereas United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted
on Human Rights Day 2007, that ``[i]t is our duty to ensure
that these rights are a living reality--that they are known,
understood and enjoyed by everyone, everywhere'': Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) recognizes on its 60th anniversary year the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights as a singular achievement of the
community of nations;
(2) recognizes the contribution in the Declaration of
Independence and the United States Constitution to the
development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
the role of the United States in preserving the legacy of
these foundational human rights precepts through its
participation in the United Nations;
(3) urges all United Nations Member States to renew their
commitment to uphold and promote the transcendent principles
of human dignity enshrined in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, especially on behalf of the world's most
vulnerable persons and those who have no power to advocate on
their own behalf; and
(4) joins with colleagues inspired by the spirit of
goodwill in parliaments throughout the world in seeking to
guide the United Nations and its agencies to serve as
effective instruments of genuine and lasting justice and
peace among nations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. PAYNE. 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
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
I want to congratulate our colleague Mr. Fortenberry for putting
forth this very important resolution. He's a very valued member of our
subcommittee, and he has been a strong supporter of issues of goodwill.
This resolution celebrates the 60th anniversary of the United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the first international
agreement on the rights of humankind. The universal declaration
proclaims the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family. It is this universal quality of the
declaration that is its strength.
The core freedoms and guarantees are entitlement of all people, not
just those from certain groups or cultures. As such, no government or
Nation has the power to confer these rights. They are inalienable
freedoms with which all people are endowed by their very nature.
The notion of inalienable rights was not invented in 1948. Socrates
wrote about ethic laws that were higher than laws of kings over 2,500
years ago.
Even a proclamation of such rights is not new. The Magna Carta, the
U.S. Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the
Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Men all
articulated specific inalienable rights.
The power of the declaration is that it represents the first
comprehensive agreement among Nations as to the specific rights and
freedoms belonging to all human beings. It has become a cornerstone of
customary international law, binding all governments to its principles.
[[Page 12002]]
In the 60 years that I have followed the adoption of the universal
Declaration, expansion of the circle of human dignity has come in fits
and starts. Authoritarian governments still attempt to limit freedoms
proclaimed by the declaration, including political and economic
pluralism, a free press, freedom of association, freedom of religion,
free and fair elections, and the rule of law. Nevertheless, the
declaration allows humble citizens, be they monks in Burma, political
dissenters in Cuba, journalists in Russia, lawyers in Pakistan or
dispossessed in Zimbabwe, a standard by which to measure and challenge
any government. As such, we see roots of freedom and democracy growing
in even the most repressed societies.
Our duty is to support the efforts of human rights defenders to
expand the circle of human freedoms so that the declaration will, in
Eleanor Roosevelt's vision, become the Magna Carta for all men
everywhere. As she says, it's better to light a candle than to curse
the darkness.
I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent
Resolution 332, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
As we reflect on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
gross violators such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, we cannot help but think
about how these repressive governments manipulate international oil
flows to keep us at their mercy.
We must reduce our reliance on these unstable foreign energy sources,
and the way to do that, Mr. Speaker, is by finding alternatives to oil
dependence. The U.S. should lead the way; yet we're stuck in the past
as our global competitors are indeed pursuing 21st century
technologies. We must commit ourselves to a comprehensive energy reform
policy that will improve energy efficiency and encourage investment in
ground-breaking research and advance alternative and renewable energy
technologies.
Much like the situation we're facing on human rights at the United
Nations, we shouldn't wait 60 years to address the increasing problem
of our foreign dependence on oil.
Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago and without a dissenting voice in the
United Nations General Assembly, we recognized the fundamental human
rights to life, to liberty, to freedom of religion, to freedom of
expression, to self-government through free elections, to freedom from
slavery and torture and so many other basic rights. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights was the product of remarkable international
consensus, and it captured the distilled conscience of the world in one
of the United Nations' finest moments.
It was not an international law or covenant, and it did not claim to
be creating the rights that it included. Rather, its purpose was to
serve as a common standard of achievement for all peoples that is
premised on faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth
of the human person.
We are fortunate and, indeed, truly blessed to live in a country
whose constitutional heritage has served to secure those aspirations
for all of America's people. But for so many people in the world, the
ideals of the universal Declaration are nothing more than an unkept
promise.
In Burma, in Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe, and many other Nations,
people suffer at the hands of self-seeking tyrants and brutal
dictatorships. Millions of others endure the scourges of human
trafficking, of religious persecution, and other offenses against human
dignity.
For those reasons, the universal declaration remains a valuable
touchstone, and the United States remains committed to promoting the
values that it espouses.
For this anniversary, however, it is also a sad opportunity to
reflect on how far the United Nations and its human rights bodies have
fallen from the lofty aspirations of the original declaration.
The United Nations Human Rights Council, formed to replace the
discredited United Nations Human Rights Commission, has devolved into
an offensive farce even worse than its predecessor.
The Council embraces some of the world's most notorious human rights
abusers as its members and has ignored genuine human rights advocacy in
favor of a relentless, single-minded attack on the democratic, freedom-
loving, multi-party State of Israel. In its session in March, the
Council passed more resolutions against Israel than against Burma,
North Korea, and Sudan combined, and it failed to comment at all on
abuses by Iran, Cuba or Uzbekistan.
The Council recently elected Jean Ziegler, a man who has compared
Israel to Nazis, and approved a notorious Israel basher as the new
Special Rapporteur on Israel and the Palestinian territories, Mr.
Speaker. The Council approved this mandate in the very same session
that it discontinued its observation of the Congo where rape is used as
a weapon against women and children.
In December 1948, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations General Assembly
proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1 year and 2 weeks
after it adopted a resolution creating the Jewish State that became
Israel. It is both tragic and offensive that extremists have been
allowed to hijack the U.N. human rights apparatus and turn the United
Nations' noblest intentions into a weapon against a democratic country.
It is my hope that the United Nations can somehow recover its moral
foundation and credibly place the ideals of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights back at the center of its operations.
{time} 1345
Human dignity and American values demand no less.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
Texas, chairwoman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on
Transportation, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished chairperson
of the Africa Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs and the full committee
chair, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member of the full committee, Ms.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and the ranking member of the subcommittee that
Mr. Payne chairs.
This is an important reiteration of this Congress' commitment to the
premises of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And I might
read, in part, the language of this declaration that says, ``The
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable
rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world.''
I believe that there is no better time than the time that we are
engaged in today, the era of the world status, to reemphasize the
importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The United Nations General Assembly proclaimed it on December 10,
1948, and the language stated that it was declared as a ``common
standard of achievement for all peoples and nations.'' Sadly, in the
21st century, when we would hope to be celebrating the foundation of
freedom, justice and peace to the world, the world is conflicted. It is
conflicted in Iraq, where the different, distinctive ethnic groups of
Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are engaged in violations, respectively, of
each of them by the other. And so even in a place of disruption in
Iraq, in a war that I oppose, we have concerns that are ignoring the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We must call for the protection
of human rights in Iraq. We must call for the protection of human
rights in Iran.
Today, I had the chance to speak to a young woman in Iran long
distance, international conversation to Miriam, a young woman of 22,
who had a wonderful vision in front of us for freedom,
[[Page 12003]]
and the ability to be the best interior designer the world would know.
To do that, she must have freedom, justice and peace in the world. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights must apply to Iran.
And as we look to the tragedy in Burma, now some weeks old, to
understand that the junta continues to oppress those who suffer from
the terrible and horrific tragedy that occurred, that people sit along
roadsides trying to find, if you will, the resources that will come to
them through the international aid organizations, and their oppressive
regime is denying them that right.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PAYNE. I yield the gentlelady an additional 2 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Can you imagine that the human rights and
dignity of those who are already brutalized through a horrific tragedy
of catastrophic proportions are now denied their human dignity because
this oppressive regime in Burma refuses to allow the international aid
organizations to go forward?
I hope by our reemphasizing this declaration, that we will stand in
abhorrence, in outrage over such undignified treatment. And then I
would ask, as we move forward, that we can no longer tolerate the
genocide in Sudan, and the completely reckless response of the Sudanese
Government in Khartoum to the dignity and human rights of those in
Darfur.
We have a litany of those. Those Tibetans who continue to fight every
day in Tibet simply to be acknowledged, simply to allow the Dalai Lama
to return over religion reasons. And to think that he has to be denied
the right to come back over religion reasons, Mr. Speaker. They allow
him to come on political reasons, on government affirmation, on
saluting the government, but just to be able to engage in his
religious, if you will, explanation, he is denied his human rights, the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. We could give a
roll call along the way of the travesties of justice.
Might I compliment and announce the change-around in Liberia with
President Johnson, who recognized a nation that had literally burned
the principles of human dignity and human rights; now, with her stellar
leadership, she is restoring the dignity to the Liberian people.
It can be done. It can be done in Sudan. It can be done in
Bangladesh. It can be done in Burma. It can be done in North Vietnam.
It can be done in places where oppression exists. But I rise today to
recount the tragedies of denial of human rights, but also to applaud
those who have overcome. And I believe it is our responsibility to not
only applaud them, but to encourage them.
I ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and let us do it by
words and deeds.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), the author of this resolution.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute today to a
pre-eminent achievement of 20th century statesmanship, an example of
U.S. leadership in the quest for securing fundamental dignity for all
human persons.
I would also like to thank Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and her staff,
as well as Chairman Berman and Mr. Payne, my subcommittee chairman, as
well for their work in bringing this important resolution before the
House.
Mr. Speaker, it was on December 10, 1948 that the memory of a brutal
world war, which took over tens of millions of lives, scarred millions
of survivors of an unimaginable holocaust, and unleashed the full fury
of atomic power on the guilty as well as the innocent, remained vividly
etched in the world's collective consciousness that led to this
important moment.
In view of this unprecedented devastation, and in the hope of
preventing future conflict, the United Nations General Assembly
proclaimed a Universal Declaration of Human Rights as ``a common
standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.'' And it also
recognized that ``the inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights
of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world.''
As the memory of World War II fades and recedes into history, it
becomes ever clearer to me that our rapidly changing world appears to
be losing sight of the guiding principles that have accompanied the
promotion of human dignity, peace and prosperity since the earliest
progression of civilization. I also believe we are living in a day when
the myriad of distractions of modern life in the United States leave
precious little time for philosophical reflection upon the foundations
which have guided this Nation through many turbulent times.
To draw attention to these important principles and the pivotal role
of the United States in bringing the Universal Declaration to fruition,
I was pleased, along with Mr. Delahunt, to introduce this resolution to
recognize the 60th anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights. It
is my hope that this effort will serve as a vivid reminder of the
profound contributions of the United States throughout our short
history as a champion of human rights around the world, of the work
that is left to be done, and inspire thoughtful reflection on the
transcended principles of human dignity.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I do believe that the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights is extremely important. We have to work to have the
United Nations. And we certainly celebrate this 60th anniversary.
I urge support for this resolution. I'd like to thank Mr. Berman, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen and, of course, Mr. Fortenberry for this very timely
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
332, which commemorates the 60th anniversary of the signing of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On December 10, 1948, only three years after the end of the
intolerance, oppression, death and destruction of World War II, the
United Nations General Assembly created the first universal statement
on the basic principles of inalienable human rights. The Declaration,
with its core values of non-discrimination, equality, fairness and
freedom, was to reaffirm faith in the dignity and worth of the human
person and save succeeding generations from the devastation of war.
Sixty years later, this document has become a standard to measure how
nations govern. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has led to
progress in banning torture and rape as weapons of war and protecting
Children from economic and sexual exploitation. The Declaration has
served as a means of achieving self-determination for millions under
colonial rule and has moved nations to guarantee legal justice and
racial and gender equality for all their people.
While the last sixty years have brought many advances in human
rights, there is still work to be done. Article 25 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights asserts that `motherhood and childhood are
entitled to special care and assistance'. Such a right cannot be
realized, however, when more than half a million women continue to die
every year in childbirth having been unable to receive health care. Nor
has it been guaranteed when over 28,000 children under the age of five
die per day from easily preventable and treatable causes.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created to ensure the
human rights of all but, in particular, those with relatively little
power in society. While ensuring the rights and prosperity of all
peoples and all nations was once an aspiration of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, it is now a necessary reality. As the
world becomes increasingly interdependent and is confronted with the
new global challenges of pandemic disease, terrorism, and hunger,
injustice anywhere endangers peace, prosperity and security everywhere.
If we wish to combat these challenges, the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights must be the foundation of our cooperation in this new
century.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to renew their commitment to
ensuring human rights for all people, everywhere and join me in
supporting this Resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by
[[Page 12004]]
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 332, as
amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF SANITATION
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 318) supporting the goals and
ideals of the International Year of Sanitation, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 318
Whereas, in 2000, the United States, along with other world
leaders, at the 55th United Nations General Assembly,
committed to achieving the Millennium Development Goals which
provide a framework for countries and international
organizations to combat such global social ills as poverty,
hunger, and disease;
Whereas one target of the Millennium Development Goals is
to halve by 2015 the proportion of people without access to
safe drinking water and basic sanitation, the only target to
be codified into United States law in the Senator Paul Simon
Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121);
Whereas the lack of access to safe water and sanitation is
one of the most pressing environmental public health issues
in the world;
Whereas over 1,000,000,000 people live without potable
water and an estimated 2,600,000,000 people do not have
access to basic sanitation facilities, which includes
980,000,000 children;
Whereas every 20 seconds a child dies as a direct result of
a lack of access to basic sanitation facilities;
Whereas only 36 percent of sub-Saharan Africa and 37
percent of South Asia have access to safe drinking water and
sanitation, the lowest rates in the world;
Whereas at any one time almost half of the developing
world's people are suffering from diseases associated with
lack of water, sanitation, and hygiene;
Whereas improved sanitation decreases the incidences of
debilitating and deadly maladies such as cholera, intestinal
worms, diarrhea, pneumonia, dysentery, and skin infections;
Whereas sanitation is the foundation of health, dignity,
and development;
Whereas increased sanitation is fundamental for reaching
all of the Millennium Development Goals;
Whereas access to basic sanitation helps economic and
social development in countries where poor sanitation is a
major cause of lost work and school days because of illness;
Whereas sanitation in schools enables children,
particularly girls reaching puberty, to remain in the
educational system;
Whereas according to the World Health Organization, every
dollar spent on proper sanitation by governments generates an
average of $7 in economic benefit;
Whereas improved disposal of human waste protects the
quality of water sources used for drinking, preparation of
food, agriculture, and bathing;
Whereas, in 2006, the United Nations, at the 61st Session
of the General Assembly, declared 2008 as the International
Year of Sanitation to recognize the progress made in
achieving the global sanitation target detailed in the
Millennium Development Goals, as well as to call upon all
Member States, United Nations agencies, regional and
international organizations, civil society organizations, and
other relevant stakeholders to renew their commitment to
attaining that target;
Whereas the official launching of the International Year of
Sanitation at the United Nations was on November 21, 2007;
and
Whereas the thrust of the International Year of Sanitation
has three parts, including--
(1) raising awareness of the importance of sanitation and
its impact on reaching other Millennium Development Goals;
(2) encouraging governments and their partners to promote
and implement policies and actions for meeting the sanitation
target; and
(3) mobilizing communities, particularly women's groups,
towards changing sanitation and hygiene practices through
sanitation health education campaigns: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That the Congress--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of the International Year
of Sanitation;
(2) recognizes the importance of sanitation on public
health, poverty reduction, economic and social development,
and the environment; and
(3) encourages the people of the United States to observe
the International Year of Sanitation with appropriate
recognition, ceremonies, activities, and programs to
demonstrate the importance of sanitation and hygiene in
achieving the Millennium Development Goals, and to support
developing countries in their efforts to achieve the
Millennium Development Goal target on basic sanitation among
populations at greatest need.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. PAYNE. 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
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues on the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Ranking Member Chris Smith and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-
Lee as well as Representative Chris Shays for being lead sponsors on
H.Con.Res 318, which supports the United Nations Declaration of 2008 as
the International Year of Sanitation. Their bipartisan support has
helped to bring this resolution to the floor for a vote. I also would
like to thank Senator Richard Durbin, who introduced the Senate
companion to this concurrent resolution.
In September 2000, the United Nations adopted the eight Millennium
Development Goals to challenge the global community to reduce poverty
and increase the health and well-being of all peoples. Two years later,
in September of 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg, the United States and the rest of the international
community reaffirmed these goals and added access to basic sanitation
as a centerpiece of the poverty eradication commitments. The target to
halve the proportion of people without access to the basic sanitation
by 2015 was defined in the Johannesburg Plan of Action.
In September of 2005, President Bush addressed the United Nations
General Assembly, at which time, as I was the U.S. delegate from the
House to the United Nations, I was very pleased that President Bush
recommitted the United States to achieving the Millennium Development
Goals.
Last year, the United Nations declared 2008 as the International Year
of Sanitation in order to recognize the great strides that have been
made towards increasing access to sanitation for people around the
world. However, it is also a time to galvanize member nations, U.N.
agencies, regional and international organizations, and other relevant
stakeholders to renew their commitment.
Access to basic sanitation is something so simple, yet so fundamental
to everyday life. Well, simple, at least, for the majority of people
who live in the developed world. An estimated 2.6 billion people live
in an environment where they do not have access to proper toilet
facilities and human waste cannot be properly disposed. And
approximately 1.1 billion people have no access to any type of improved
drinking sources of water. As a direct consequence, over 1.6 million
people die every year from easily preventable diseases attributable to
lack of access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation. Ninety
percent of those are children under five, mostly in developing
countries.
This lack of access to basic sanitation affects everything from how
food is grown and prepared to the ability of girls and young women to
attend school. Sanitation is an obvious issue of health, but also one
of dignity, physical safety and development.
[[Page 12005]]
Halving the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation
is a target of the seventh Millennium Development Goal, which is to
ensure environmental sustainability. In fact, it is vital to the
success of other Millennium Development Goal targets in order for them
to reach their goal.
Access to proper sanitation is essential to reducing childhood and
maternal mortality. It can help reduce the symptoms associated with HIV
and AIDS. It can also improve the living conditions of 100 million-plus
people living in slums.
{time} 1400
The dividends that increased access to basic sanitation pay are
multifold. Depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have
been estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in
access to basic sanitation and safe water. According to the United
Nations, meeting this MDG target will yield nearly $200 billion in
annual benefits. If we meet this goal, people and governments will save
more than $500 million in direct health treatment costs and get back
more than 3 billion working days that are now lost to sanitation-
related illnesses. Reducing the incidences to sanitation-related
diseases will add nearly 200 million days of school attendance.
As we in Congress work to increase access to lifesaving medication
and strengthening health care infrastructures, we must remember that
the success of such initiatives is, in part, dependent upon individuals
having access to basic sanitation. Let us use this time to also refocus
our efforts on strengthening one of the basic pillars upon which global
health must stand, proper sanitation.
I strongly support this resolution and ask that my colleagues back H.
Con. Res. 318, which supports the ideals and goals of the International
Year of Sanitation.
I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution
318, authored by my good friend from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
Lack of access to clean drinking water and sanitation are indeed some
of the most pressing environmental public health issues in the world.
Today, an estimated 2.6 billion people, including almost 1 billion
children, live without access to basic sanitation facilities. Every 20
seconds, a child dies as a direct result.
In fact, it is estimated that nearly half the developing world
suffers from preventable diseases associated with the lack of access to
clean water, sanitation and hygiene. Without sufficient access to these
services, countries, communities and families become susceptible to and
are often defenseless against life-threatening diseases and infections
which perpetuate this horrible cycle of poverty.
As this resolution notes, sanitation improves health. It saves lives.
It protects the environment. It improves economies. And it contributes
to human dignity and social development. It is imperative that the
United States and the international community work together to achieve
the goals of the Millennium Development Account and significantly
reduce the number of people suffering from a lack of sanitation and
clean water.
Another pressing issue is one that underscores the potentially grave
future that we may face if we don't immediately address rising energy
costs and find alternative sources of energy to carry out our daily
tasks, some critical tasks such as the energy required to filter our
water supply. This resolution also reminds us, however, that necessity
is the mother of invention, and that human beings have the potential to
achieve any task necessary to improve living conditions.
How does it remind us of this? In Africa, for example, where there
are areas that lack consistent and dependable sources of oil to produce
electricity, they must develop and rely on alternative methods,
sometimes primitive ones, such as fire for boiling water to avoid
disease. Again, in the most remote region of the world, we are thinking
of alternative sources and alternative methods. We here must also think
and seek alternative clean energy. Will we wait until circumstances are
so dire that American will be forced to boil their water in their
backyards to conserve the little energy available because we failed to
develop alternative sources today?
Just as we seek to foster ingenuity in the developing world to
provide greater access to clean drinking water and basic sanitation in
resource-poor settings, we must foster such ingenuity in our own energy
sector.
I thank Chairman Payne for introducing this timely resolution which
highlights the important issues of clean water, sanitation and hygiene.
And I urge my colleagues to fully support House Concurrent Resolution
318.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas,
Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would like to thank the distinguished
gentleman and the ranking member of the subcommittee and the chairman
and the ranking member of the full committee. I would like to thank
Chairman Payne in particular for introducing this important resolution.
And I am very proud to cosponsor it because it is clearly a life-and-
death matter. When you talk about sanitation and the removal of waste
and the removal of sewage, you are talking about the lives of children.
And as the cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, let me
acknowledge that the most vulnerable to unsanitary conditions are
children. In the disease that spreads, they are, in fact, the victims.
Global sanitation coverage has increased from 49 to 59 percent
between 1990 and 2004. And that is, in essence, allowing over 1 billion
people throughout the world to gain improved sanitation in the past 14
years. Pregnant women, nursing mothers and, of course, young children
are, in fact, the bigger victims.
I am particularly troubled that 90 percent of these deaths that I
have mentioned of those who died because of lack of access to safe
drinking water and basic sanitation are children under 5, mostly in
developing countries. As I mentioned, children are particularly hard
hit by poor sanitation, paying a high price through missed schooling,
disease, malnutrition and even death. An estimated 1.5 million children
die each year due to poor sanitation, hygiene and unsafe water. UNICEF
reports that girls are particularly vulnerable, missing out on
schooling once they hit puberty, due to the lack of clean and safe
latrines.
As the world's only remaining superpower, I think it is important to
avert this humanitarian crisis. Chairman Payne, I believe that this is
an important, constructive way of avoiding this massive death. Simply
put, the Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would avert
470,000 deaths. And it would continue to do so. According to economic
analysis, depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have
been estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in it.
Let me just indicate that this is common sense. It is, again, human
dignity. And as I close, let me also add my support for H. Con. Res.
337 honoring the Seeds of Peace. It is a program that I am very much
aware of, having participated with the young people who have come from
Israel and Palestine who have sat down together as teenagers and said
we want peace. It was founded by John Wallach. Seeds of Peace initially
brought 46 Israeli and Arab youths together. It has spread now to
Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, the Balkans, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
These summer camps are enormously important. Again, the Congressional
Children's Caucus believes that children are not only our tomorrows,
they are our yesterdays and todays.
And I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his
leadership in these areas. And with that I ask my colleagues to support
H. Con. Res. 318 and as well the following bill H. Con. Res. 337. And
again, I thank Mr. Payne for his leadership.
[[Page 12006]]
I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res. 318, ``supporting the
goals and ideals of the International Year of Sanitation.'' I would
like to thank my colleague Congressman Payne for introducing this
important resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor, as well as the
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congressman Berman, for
his leadership in bringing this resolution to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, In 2007, the United Nations declared 2008 to be the
International Year of Sanitation, to raise awareness of the importance
of sanitation and its impact on reaching other Millennium Development
Goals and to recognize progress made in achieving the global sanitation
target detailed in the Millennium Development Goals. In addition, the
International Year of Sanitation is intended to call upon all Member
States, United Nations agencies, regional and international
organizations, civil society organizations, and other relevant
stakeholders to renew their commitment to attaining the target.
As my colleagues are aware, in September 2000, the United Nations
adopted the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that challenged
the global community to reduce poverty and increase the health and
well-being of all peoples. Two years later, in September 2002, at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the United
States and the rest of the international community reaffirmed these
goals and added access to basic sanitation as a centerpiece of the
poverty eradication commitments. The target to halve the proportion of
people without access to basic sanitation by 2015 was defined in the
Johannesburg Plan of Action.
We have begun to make important progress. Over one billion people,
throughout the world, have gained access to improved sanitation in the
past 14 years. Global sanitation coverage has increased from 49 percent
to 59 percent between 1990 and 2004. These gains represent substantial
improvements in the quality of life and basic health for countless
people.
Mr. Speaker, despite the establishment of these goals, billions of
people still lack access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and we
are not on target to meet the Millennium Development Goal to reduce by
half the proportion of people without access to basic sanitation by
2015. Today, over 2.4 billion people--half the developing world--lack
access to basic sanitation and 1.1 billion people have no access to any
type of improved drinking source of water. As a direct consequence,
over 1.6 million people die every year from easily preventable diseases
attributable to lack of access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation.
As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I am particularly
troubled that 90 percent of these deaths are children under 5, mostly
in developing countries. Children are particularly hard hit by poor
sanitation, paying a high price through missed schooling, disease,
malnutrition, and even death. An estimated 1.5 million children under
five die each year due to poor sanitation, hygiene, and unsafe water.
In addition to claiming too many young lives, poor sanitation reduces
children's ability to grow and develop, stunting the economic and
social development of the entire nation. UNICEF reports that girls are
particularly vulnerable, missing out on schooling once they hit puberty
due to the lack of clean and safe latrines.
As the world's only remaining superpower, the United States has a
moral obligation to take the lead in averting humanitarian catastrophe.
Increased access to sanitation would have an enormous impact on the
lives of people throughout the world. Simply put, meeting the
Millennium Development Goal on basic sanitation would avert 470,000
deaths. In addition, achieving the target would bring enormous economic
gains. Meeting the Millennium Development Goal would result in an extra
320 million productive working days every year, and would bring
considerable benefits to investment. According to economic analysis,
depending on the region of the world, economic benefits have been
estimated to range from $3 to $34 for each dollar invested in access to
basic sanitation and safe water.
Mr. Speaker, even as our attention is consumed by rising food and
fuel prices, it is vital that we do not lose focus of the equally vital
goal of basic sanitation. The resolution that we are considering today
recognizes the importance of sanitation on public health, poverty
reduction, economic and social development, and the environment and
encourages all Americans to observe the International Year of
Sanitation with appropriate recognition, ceremonies, activities, and
programs to demonstrate the importance of sanitation, hygiene, and
access to safe drinking water in achieving the Millennium Development
Goals.
Mr. Speaker, the benefits of meeting the Millennium Development Goal
on basic sanitation would be dramatic and global. We have the
opportunity to drastically improve the international community's
ability to reduce global poverty, and to improve the health of people
worldwide. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Africa and Global Health. I hope that he
addresses not just this resolution, but the one before us on human
rights.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend, the ranking member,
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and didn't get here in time
to speak on the resolution lauding the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is among the most durable,
enduring, inspiring and historic set of fundamental principles ever
enunciated by anyone ever in history. It ranks right up there with the
Magna Carta. It ranks right up there with the U.S. Bill of Rights,
which obviously enumerated a number of our fundamental freedoms that we
love and enjoy as Americans.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 60 years after its
adoption, continues to serve as a backdrop to judge government policies
and behaviors toward its citizens. And that is especially important as
to how a government treats the weak, its most vulnerable and those who
might otherwise be disenfranchised.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a promissory note. It's
a paper promise that must be backed by deeds. It has only, however,
been realized in part over the last 60 years. It is a work in progress.
The Declaration inspires people to realize that they, as human beings,
endowed by God, by our Creator, with certain inalienable rights, ought
to fight for those rights. And this gives them a very useful tool in
that endeavor, a means to that end.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has emphasized a number of
important and hallowed rights, including religious freedom, the right
to life, freedom from torture, equal protection, due process, labor
nights and freedom of assembly. Under it, no one should ever be left
behind. And that means that regardless of race, ethnicity, age,
disability, or condition of dependency, no one should be left behind.
We know in many countries of the world, sadly that is not the case.
In places like the People's Republic of China, human rights are
systematically and pervasively violated by Beijing, whether it be
religious freedom or the outrages we recently saw in Tibet, where the
government crackdown crushed dissent with an iron fist. China
persecutes the Uighurs in the autonomous region and families, especally
women as part of their draconian one-child-per-couple policy which has
made brothers and sisters illegal throughout China. That's right.
Brothers and sisters are illegal in the People's Republic of China. A
couple is required to get government permission to have a child. And
forced abortion and huge fines are imposed on women and men who do not
submit to the plan. In Burma and North Korea, human rights are also
violated with grave impunity. And the U.N. Human Rights Council and
other bodies of the U.N. need to do more to implement the intent of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sadly, they have largely failed.
We have seen a very disturbing rise in anti-Semitism throughout
Europe, certainly in the Middle East, and even in the United States and
Canada. That too has to be combated. We see a rise in modern-day
slavery, human trafficking--sex trafficking or labor trafficking. That
needs to be combated and eradicated and victims assisted. Everyone
should be free of that kind of terrible and despicable mistreatment.
The Sudan, Zimbabwe, the genocide occurring in the Darfur region of
Sudan is also a grave violation of human rights, completely
antithetical to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Like the
last, this is a century of victims.
And let me say before the West gets too smug about how well we are
doing,
[[Page 12007]]
we, too, have our problems. We see them every day. We have fallen short
of the standard. I respectfully submit to my colleagues that we have
failed to treat the defenseless unborn child with compassion and
justice. We know now more than we have ever known before about the
magnificent world of an unborn child. Ultrasound, 4-D ultrasound, the
ability to do intrauterine blood transfusions and microsurgery have
shattered the myth that an unborn child is somehow not human or alive.
Of course they are. We know that these babies are society's littlest
patients, in need of care and love, increasingly surviving at earlier,
earlier times if born prematurely.
Abortion needs to be looked at, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, as a
serious violation of human rights. Abortion is violence against
children. The dismemberment or chemical poisoning of a baby is
antithetical to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All abuse is
contrary to the Declaration and that holds true no matter how old you
are, and that includes unborn children. We also know abortion hurts
women psychologically and physically. And that evidence grows by the
day.
So I would hope that we would look at human rights as being for
everyone, at all times, regardless of age, condition of dependency,
regardless of race, no matter where you live. The universal declaration
is for you. We need to speak out more boldly with better, more focused
appeals employing all the tools at our disposal, linking sanctions and
withholding of certain aid if a country doesn't live up to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Again, the Declaration is a backdrop. And I hope that we do even
better than we have in the past. The past has been checkered. Certainly
we have moved the ball down the court. Much more needs to be done
however to respect everyone's fundamental human rights.
I thank my colleagues.
Mr. PAYNE. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon, the member
of the Budget Committee and one of the leading environmentalists in the
House, Mr. Blumenauer.
{time} 1415
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, as I
appreciate his leadership on this, and look forward to watching this
legislation pass today.
It was my pleasure to be in Johannesburg in 2002 when sanitation was
added to the Millennium Challenge Development Goal to create a
comprehensive framework for the needs of the world's poorest. But I am
saddened that we are here today, still repeating those horrible
statistics about over 1 billion who lack access to safe drinking water,
more than 2 billion who lack access to sanitation.
I would only take exception to my good friend from Florida's comments
a moment ago, because I have been told that a child dies needlessly
every 15 seconds. But whether it is 20 seconds or 15 seconds, it is
absolutely scandalous that in this day and age, when we know what to
do, when for less than the price of a take-out pizza per year per
family, the United States alone could be transformational on that. One
reflects on what difference it would make, not just those children that
wouldn't die needlessly. It would translate into over one-quarter
billion additional days in school. It would save over $7 billion in
unnecessary medical costs. It would allow one-third of a trillion
working days for young people from age 15 to 39 worldwide. And, make no
mistake about it, it makes a difference for those of us in the United
States.
First of all, pollution any place in the world finds its way into the
water supply and makes a difference for us. Make no mistake, that at a
time when virtually no one in the world is more than 24 hours away from
anybody else watching disease break forth unnecessarily, it is not just
a tragedy in some remote village or some southern hemisphere megacity.
It can make a difference for the health of Americans here and abroad.
And when the CIA has identified urban instability and decay as one of
the seven greatest causes of threats to our security, this compounds
our problem with global unrest and terrorism.
I am pleased that we have been able to work together with Mr. Payne.
In my prior tenure on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we passed the
Water for the Poor Act in 2005 and acknowledged the late Mr. Lantos and
former colleagues Leach, Hyde and Senator Frist. But we are not even
fully implementing that legislation 3 years later. I commend the
gentleman for his oversight hearing to help the Department of State to
understand what is going to be necessary to fully implement this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, we are halfway through the International Year of
Sanitation. It is time for us to reflect on what we are going to do
about this problem. This isn't some remote goal that is beyond our
capacity. Girl Scout troops, churches, synagogues and Rotary Clubs know
what to do and in fact they are acting at a grassroots level to do
something about it. We in Congress need to do our job supporting Mr.
Payne with the accountability of the State Department.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. PAYNE. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. One of the most important things we can do is to work
to transfer unnecessary military assistance. The United States is
lavishing huge sums of money for military aid on countries like Egypt
and Pakistan, where it is dubious in terms of the outcome of security
for us or anybody else, but they have populations that are desperately
in need of clean water and sanitation. We need to reorder our
priorities to be able to achieve this goal.
Back in 2002 when we added sanitation, 2015 seemed like a long way
away. Well, we are halfway there, in terms of time, but we are not
halfway there in terms of accomplishment. I hope that this resolution
will be a little nudge to us all to make sure that we do our part. I
appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and his leadership.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
so I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I urge support
of this resolution. As the previous speaker indicated, we passed
legislation called Water For the Poor, and in our oversight hearing I
was looking for places like Burkina Faso in Niger that had no water,
but found that the money was allocated to Iraq and Afghanistan. ``Water
for the Poor'' was what it was called, not ``Water for the War.''
So we need to be sure that when we pass legislation, that it goes to
the intended recipients and not for other purposes. If other purposes
must be done, put them in another budget. There is plenty of money in
other budgets and no one ever opposes them. So put it over there, and
leave our Water for the Poor for the countries that are actually and
really poor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Serrano). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res.
318, 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. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
HONORING SEEDS OF PEACE
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 337) honoring Seeds of Peace for
its 15th anniversary as an organization promoting understanding,
reconciliation, acceptance, coexistence, and peace in the Middle East,
South Asia, and other regions of conflict.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
[[Page 12008]]
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 337
Whereas Seeds of Peace, founded by the late John Wallach,
is a program that brings together young people and educators
from regions of conflict to study and learn about coexistence
and conflict resolution;
Whereas these young people study and learn primarily at an
international conflict resolution summer camp operated by
Seeds of Peace in Otisfield, Maine, and also through its
regional programs such as the facilitation training course in
the Middle East, the homestay programs in South Asia, and
international regional conferences;
Whereas the first international conflict resolution camp
welcomed Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, and Egyptian youths
in the summer of 1993, and has since expanded to involve
youths from other regions of conflict, including from Greece,
Turkey and divided Cyprus, the Balkans, India, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan;
Whereas Seeds of Peace utilizes the summer camp to initiate
dialogue between the youths of the United States and the
youths from various conflict regions to dispel hatred and
create religious and cultural understanding;
Whereas Seeds of Peace regional programs have trained
hundreds of educators to teach peaceful conflict resolutions
techniques in their classrooms, positively influencing
thousands of students;
Whereas Seeds of Peace works to dispel fear, mistrust, and
prejudice, which among others are root causes of violence and
conflict, and to build a new generation of leaders who are
committed to achieving peace;
Whereas Seeds of Peace reveals the human face of those whom
youth may have been taught to hate, by engaging campers in
both guided coexistence sessions and ordinary summer camp
activities such as living together in cabins, sharing meals,
canoeing, swimming, playing sports, and creative exploration
through the arts and computers;
Whereas long-term peace between Arabs and Israelis, Indians
and Pakistanis, and Afghans and Pakistanis can only be
achieved with the emergence of a new generation of leaders
who will choose dialogue, friendship, and openness over
violence and hatred;
Whereas Seeds of Peace provides year-round opportunities
via regional programming and innovative technology to enable
former participants to build on the relationships forged at
camp, so that the learning processes begun at camp may
continue subsequently in the participants' home countries;
Whereas youth graduates of the camp, known as Seeds,
currently number over 4,000, with an additional 567 adult
delegation leaders also having completed Seeds of Peace
training;
Whereas this graduate network receives continued support
from Seeds of Peace in promoting professional cooperation;
Whereas Seeds of Peace is strongly supported by
participating governments and many world leaders; and
Whereas continued partial Federal funding for Seeds of
Peace demonstrates its recognized importance in promoting
peaceful resolution of conflicts as a primary goal of United
States policy: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) reaffirms that youth should be involved in long-term,
visionary solutions to violent conflicts;
(2) honors the accomplishments of Seeds of Peace in its 15
years of promoting understanding, reconciliation, acceptance,
coexistence, and peace among youth from the Middle East and
other regions of conflict around the world; and
(3) views Seeds of Peace as a highly creative and
successful effort to achieve reconciliation among peoples
from areas of conflict, which inspires great hope that
nations in conflict ultimately can learn to live together in
peace, cooperation, and security.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
General Leave
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 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
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 337, a
resolution honoring Seeds of Peace for its 15th anniversary as an
organization promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence in the Middle
East and around the world.
While the peace process has had its ups and downs over the last 15
years, Seeds of Peace has blossomed into a widely recognized
organization that has facilitated interaction among thousands of young
people and young leaders and educators from all around the world.
Seeds of Peace lays a foundation for sustainable peace by promoting
dialogue among young leaders before their fears, mistrust and inherited
prejudices have permanently shaped their vision of their enemy. We get
them in time to prevent that from happening.
After a summer program in Maine, which also includes many American
participants, these young seeds, as they are known, and their teachers,
continue with regional and international programming that furthers the
dialogue among and across nationalities and supports the development of
future leaders. Seeds of Peace also fulfills an important
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, reaching out to young people,
particularly in Arab and other Muslim countries, and offering them hope
and a positive vision of the future.
A decade and a half ago, Seeds of Peace, founded by the late John
Wallach, envisioned a handful of Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and
Jordanian teenagers coming together in the woods of Maine and breaking
down barriers of mistrust. Since its inaugural camp session 15 years
ago, the mission of Seeds of Peace has grown to include not just those
from the Middle East, but young people from throughout South Asia and
Afghanistan. Governments negotiate agreements, but Seeds of Peace has
remained as the only people that can define a quality of peace.
Every new seed, you may recall that is what they are called when they
complete the course, whether he or she is in Kabul or Tel Aviv,
Ramallah or Islamabad, represents one more person who has the potential
and the required skills to see through mistrust and prejudice and
thereby to contribute to making and building peace. That is why we seek
to honor the terrific organization Seeds of Peace. That is why I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Concurrent
Resolution 337, which honors Seeds of Peace on its 15th anniversary. We
in Congress and all people of goodwill worldwide want to see peace,
stability and security prevail in the Middle East, and indeed in all
regions of conflict. However, that goal remains illusive when leaders
act in ways that distort, perpetuate and aggravate otherwise resolvable
disputes between nations and peoples.
Such leaders make peace impossible by programming their citizens into
viewing other nations and other people as wicked, inhumane and worthy
of hatred and death. The most obvious example of this phenomenon is the
unceasing dissemination by Arab countries of anti-Israel and anti-
Semitic propaganda. Children in the Arab world and Iran are taught
using textbooks and official media to hate Israel, to hate the Jews and
to forfeit their own lives in order to kill as many Israelis and Jews
as possible.
Fortunately, Seeds of Peace has spent 15 years bringing together
youth from the Middle East and other conflict-torn regions and
encouraging them to engage their peers as fellow human beings worthy of
respect and tolerance. Programs like Seeds of Peace cultivate the young
leaders who can oppose violent extremism and hateful propaganda, who
can promote a culture of life and seek peaceful, rational and mutually
beneficial solutions to seemingly intractable conflicts.
Mr. Speaker, given that Seeds of Peace is devoted to promoting
peaceful resolution of the world's most dangerous conflicts, it is
important to note that the allocation of vital and scarce resources
contributes to conflicts around the globe. In the Middle East, oil and
natural gas resources enable many authoritarian governments
[[Page 12009]]
to resist reform and to finance destabilizing actions, including
weapons programs and sponsorship of Islamic jihadists. Therefore, it is
especially important for our national security and for the cause of
peace worldwide for the United States to stop our dependence on foreign
sources of energy.
I thank my good friend and colleague from Maine (Mr. Allen) for
introducing this Seeds of Peace anniversary resolution. I urge the
House to adopt it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), chairperson of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
{time} 1430
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Let me thank the Chair and the
subcommittee chairs of these committees.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Allen in bringing
forth this House Concurrent Resolution 337 honoring the Seeds of Peace
for its 15th anniversary as an organization.
The importance of peace in the world today is often overlooked due to
the severity of constant conflict. As a mother and a lawmaker, the
reality of war concerns me for the future of our Nation and the world.
Seeds of Peace is dedicated to empowering young leaders from regions
of conflict with the leadership skills required to advance
reconciliation and coexistence. I am proud to say that I worked with
them here in Washington and in Dallas, and I have partnered with
Congressman Barney Frank at times to host them.
Due to its proven impact and success in the Middle East, Seeds of
Peace has earned international recognition as an effective model for
resolving conflict worldwide, and these are young people who have not
been kept away from communication or a part of irritation of Israel.
I firmly support Seeds of Peace because I believe peace ultimately
depends upon breaking down barriers and mistrust among people from
these regions of conflict. Governments negotiate agreements, but only
people can define the quality of peace. Innovative people-to-people
programs like Seeds of Peace successfully accomplish this goal on a
rather modest budget.
I am proud to support the passage of this resolution and urge my
colleagues to support it. I thank Mr. Payne for allowing me to make
these statements.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H. Con. Res. 337, ``Honoring the Seeds of Peace for its 15th
Anniversary as an Organization.'' I would like to thank my colleague
Congressman Allen for introducing this important resolution, which I am
proud to cosponsor, as well as the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Congressman Berman, for his leadership in bringing this
resolution to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, fifteen years ago, in 1993, Seeds of Peace hosted its
first international conflict resolution camp. In that first year,
amidst regional conflict and fighting a history of hatred, the
organization brought together Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, and
Egyptian youth. Founded by journalist John Wallach, Seeds of Peace
initially brought together 46 Israeli and Arab youth. Since that time,
Seeds of Peace has offered summer camps for youths from conflict
regions around the world and from the United States, involving young
people from the initial countries as well as from Greece, Turkey,
Cyprus, the Balkans, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. These summer
camps have made enormous strides toward fostering cultural and
religious understanding.
Seeds of Peace empowers a new generation of leaders with the tools
they need to overcome prejudice and to communicate and negotiate
effectively. The summer camps help these youth to develop empathy,
respect, and confidence, while giving their ``enemies'' a human face.
The young people who attend these summer camps are the same people who
will grow up to build a future of peace and stability. There are now
nearly 4,000 young Seeds of Peace leaders who are working to make a
positive difference in some of our world's most troubled regions.
As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I strongly believe
in investing in our children. By doing so, we are investing in our
future. Long-term peace between warring parties, including Arabs and
Israelis, Indians and Pakistanis, and Afghans and Pakistanis, is
dependent on the emergence of a new generation of leaders able and
willing to engage in constructive dialogue.
By bringing young people from different backgrounds together in a
recreational environment, Seeds of Peace lays a foundation for
sustainable peace by facilitating interaction among young leaders
before their fears, mistrust, and inherited prejudices have permanently
shaped their vision of their ``enemy.'' After spending a summer at camp
in Maine, participants and teachers continue to interact through
regional and international programming, furthering the dialogue among
and across nationalities. Seeds of Peace supports the development of
future leaders.
In addition to these summer camps for children from conflict regions,
Seeds of Peace now operates a domestic program called ``Maine Seeds,''
addressing ethnic and racial tensions between diverse communities in
Maine. Also, in 2004, Seeds of Peace launched its ``Beyond Borders''
initiative, bringing teens from additional Middle East countries, such
as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, to participate in a cultural
exchange program between American and Arab youth.
Mr. Speaker, while the Arab/Israeli peace process has moved forward
haltingly since 1993, Seeds of Peace has grown into a major
organization that continues to foster interaction among thousands of
young leaders and educators from around the world. It continues to
build upon the basic premise the prejudices dispelled during youth will
be prejudices dispelled for life.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution, honoring Seeds of Peace for its fifteen years of promoting
reconciliation, coexistence, and peace among youth of the Middle East
and other conflict areas.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 337.
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.
____________________
HONORING THE SACRIFICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY DISABLED AMERICAN
VETERANS
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution (H. Con. Res. 336) honoring the
sacrifices and contributions made by disabled American veterans.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 336
Whereas the people of the United States have a sincere
appreciation and respect for members of the Armed Forces who
suffered disabling wounds while serving in the United States
military;
Whereas there are approximately 2,800,000 veterans
receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs
for disabilities incurred while defending our Nation;
Whereas the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have
resulted in 30,000 disabled American veterans as a direct
result of combat operations, and even more so from conditions
simulating war, instrumentalities of war, and hazardous duty
in combat-related training;
Whereas families throughout every State in America have
been affected by loved ones returning disabled from their
service to their Nation;
Whereas the American public supports the brave men and
women who have defended the freedom of all in America;
Whereas America owes its very integrity to her sons and
daughters in uniform, who risk the most for the least, and
who epitomize the extraordinary meaning of service,
sacrifice, and, most importantly, freedom; and
Whereas Americans should remember and honor our men and
women in uniform who incurred disabilities while defending
our Nation with a Disabled American Veterans Week: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) recognizes the great sacrifices made by disabled
veterans and their families;
[[Page 12010]]
(2) calls on the people of the United States to honor all
disabled American veterans and the freedom for which they
sacrificed;
(3) encourages local, State, and national organizations and
governmental institutions to participate in the effort to
honor the sacrifices of America's disabled veterans; and
(4) supports the goals and ideals of Disabled American
Veterans Week.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
With House Concurrent Resolution 336, we honor the sacrifices and
contributions made of our disabled veterans. The current wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have added well over 30,000 of our sons and daughters
to the roles of veterans disabled in defense of our Nation, with the
number continuing to grow.
Collectively, there are approximately 2.8 million veterans receiving
compensation for disability incurred in the line of duty. This
resolution calls for the establishment of a single week dedicated
annually to each and every one of our Nation's disabled veterans.
What better time would there be for groups large and small, national
and local, private and public, to come together and remember in their
own way the sacrifices of the Nation's heroes? Those great Americans
gave the most for the least. They have earned our lasting remembrance
and much more.
It is far too easy for many to forget the true costs of war, to
forget the deaths of our servicemen and to ignore the wounds of those
who return. It is too easy for too many of us to think that the cost of
war ends when the last soldier returns.
Our disabled veterans continue to serve our country in so many ways,
bearing their wounds as a reminder to all that freedom and liberty are
not free. The men and women who return wounded and disabled from
combat, and service to our Nation, remind us of the terrible price we
pay, not only in costs measured in dollars, but the costs measured in
lives lost and changed.
It is therefore right and proper that we remember the service and
sacrifice of our disabled veterans and pay tribute and honor to them
during this week of Disabled American Veterans Week.
When called, they answered. When needed, they served. All Americans
owe them a debt of gratitude and a heartfelt remembrance for their
sacrifice and service. I am reminded of the words of the first
President of the United States, George Washington, whose words are
worth repeating at this time. ``The willingness with which our people
are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be
directly proportioned as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier
wars were treated and appreciated by their country.''
It is part of my service and duties to visit the veterans' hospitals
and clinics in the areas I travel to. I recently visited the medical
center in Puerto Rico, dedicated a new clinic in Orange City, Florida,
and, before that, the Medical Center in New Orleans.
We have been funding the VA and veterans health care at record
levels, giving the VA the largest increase in funding in the history of
the United States. It is our duty to oversee the VA to make sure that
they are spending the money properly in the best interests of our brave
men and women who defend the rights and freedom of our great Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House
Concurrent Resolution 336, a measure to honor the sacrifices and
contributions made by America's disabled veterans. Throughout our
Nation's history, the men and women of our Armed Forces have gone
bravely into battle, risking their lives and livelihoods, sacrificing
their safety to defend our freedom.
When their duty is done, many return home to life as it was.
Sadly, for veterans seriously injured in the line of duty, leaving
the battlefield does not mark the end of conflict. These permanently
disabled soldiers often carry home life-changing disabilities, harsh
reminders of the price of freedom.
By supporting H. Con. Res. 336, we will recognize the great
sacrifices made by disabled veterans and their families. We will call
upon the people of the United States to honor disabled American
veterans and the freedoms for which they sacrificed. We will encourage
local, State and national organizations and governmental institutions
to participate in the effort to honor the sacrifices of America's
disabled veterans, and we will support the goals and ideals of Disabled
American Veterans Week.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution
establishing Disabled American Veterans Week.
I introduced this resolution to express my gratitude and to allow the
entire Nation to express our gratitude to those brave men and women who
have given so much in the name of freedom.
I would especially like to thank Congressmen Bilirakis, Boozman,
Lynch and the over 100 other original cosponsors who joined me in
support of this resolution.
Over 2.8 million men and women who fought for our country have
sustained injuries that have forever changed their lives. It is my hope
that by establishing Disabled American Veterans Week we will increase
awareness of the struggles that America's heroes face every day and
encourage more support for our brave wounded warriors.
I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the great
sacrifices made by disabled American veterans and their families. These
heroes epitomize the meaning of service and sacrifice, and this is the
very least we can do to honor our Nation's disabled veterans.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from
Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), the ranking member of the Subcommittee
on Oversight and Investigations.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of H. Con. Res. 336, a
commonsense resolution that expresses support for one of the greatest
segments of the American population, the disabled American veteran.
Back home in Florida, I represent nearly 110,000 veterans, the second
highest number of any Member of Congress. As you might guess, many of
these brave men and women are disabled, either injured in battle or in
the course of their service in the United States military.
Disabled veterans are cared for by military professionals at the VA.
They also band together in veterans organizations like the Disabled
American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, or Blinded Veterans
Association.
However, there was no Federal recognition in place for Americans
specifically to remember the deeds and heroism of disabled veterans.
The concurrent resolution before us today calls for the establishment
of a Disabled American Veterans Week and shows all disabled veterans
that Congress does not forget their bravery and actions in service to
our great Nation.
You know, every weekend I returned home to Florida to meet with my
constituents and hear their needs and concerns and what I can do to
serve the men and women who live in the Fifth Congressional District.
I often hear words of thanks for voting in support of drilling in
ANWR and in the Outer Continental Shelf, or get asked what Congress is
going to do to stop the outrageous increase in the cost of gasoline
that we have seen since our colleagues across the aisle took over the
House and Senate.
However, the most poignant and heart-wrenching stories I hear are
oftentimes from veterans. As you might expect, I attend dozens of
veterans
[[Page 12011]]
events throughout the eight counties in my district. It is, indeed, at
these events that I hear stories of courageous deeds, heroic actions
and lives forever changed by the ravages of war.
Disabled veterans have given so much to this Nation with their blood,
sweat and tears, lying on the battlefields from Germany, to Korea, to
Vietnam, to Iraq and Afghanistan.
This resolution calling for a Disabled American Veterans Week shows
the thousands of men and women who served with honor and distinction
that Congress will see that their memories and deeds are never
forgotten.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Altmire, for introducing this resolution. I
would hope that all Members of this body can support such a worthy
passage for disabled veterans.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
Mr. LYNCH. Firstly, I would like to thank Representative Brown for
graciously yielding me time for speaking on this important resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution
336 a resolution which honors the sacrifice and contributions made by
America's disabled veterans. The brave men and women currently serving
in our Armed Forces, and the veterans who have put on the uniform
before them, deserve our utmost appreciation for their continued
commitment to the protection of this Nation.
Regrettably, millions of these veterans have been wounded and
disabled while defending the rights and freedoms that uniquely define
our country. According to the latest statistics provided by the
Department of Veterans Affairs, there are approximately 2.9 million
disabled veterans now receiving services from the VA. Of the 2.9
million disabled veterans, a total of 30,000 have served in either
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
The great sacrifice that these men and women have made on behalf of
the American people cannot go unnoticed. American veterans have earned
our undying gratitude and our continued support. During last year's
appropriation process, we began to head in the right direction, in my
opinion, when Congress allocated $87.59 billion to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, an $8 billion increase from the previous year.
{time} 1445
Of this total, $37.2 billion was provided the Veterans Health
Administration, with $3.6 billion allocated to post-traumatic stress
disorder funding, and $189.25 million for traumatic brain injury
funding, and $500 million for medical and prosthetic research. Our
commitment to America's disabled veterans is exemplified by honoring
these men and women in the present and continuing to invest in their
future.
I thank Mr. Altmire for introducing this thoughtful resolution and
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House Concurrent Resolution
336.
Mr. SCALISE. I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Boozman).
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, as a Nation we are blessed with many
things. We have a Constitution that sets the standard for freedom
around the world. We have a land that provides us with bountiful food
and superb scenery. But most importantly, America is blessed to have
sons and daughters willing to put themselves in harm's way to protect
the 99 percent of Americans who do not serve.
Unfortunately, that feeling of patriotism and sacrifice way too often
results in disability that affects the veteran for the rest of their
life. Often, the disability is small. But sometimes the injury, whether
physical or mental, has a significant impact on the veteran's quality
of life and their ability to support their families. In such
situations, the disability has affected more than just the veteran. As
a part of our debt to these men and women, taxpayers compensate them
for their injuries and provide a range of benefits unmatched in any
other country. But we can and should do something more symbolic of
disabled veterans' service to the Nation, and that is to designate a
week that will remind Americans that disabled veterans are with them
every day.
By giving disabled American veterans the recognition of a week named
in their honor, we demonstrate to the American people the importance of
the sacrifices made by disabled veterans and their families. This is a
way to honor our disabled veterans, and I certainly urge all of my
colleagues to support this resolution.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. SCALISE. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. BUYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I
have an obligation to help ensure that veterans and their families have
access to the benefits and services they so richly deserve. More
importantly, I have been an advocate for military members and veterans
almost my entire life. I have been in uniform for 28 years while I
served the last 16 years in Congress. It is a great part of who I am.
We have before us this House resolution to create a disabled veterans
week. Now we should pause for a moment and say why is Congress bringing
this bill to the floor at this time? You see, I view this bill on the
floor at this time as an inoculation. It is an inoculation because the
Democrats who control this Congress want to bring a bill to the floor
where it will cut a monthly pension to wartime elderly disabled and
indigent veterans in the amount of a billion dollars. So before the
Democrats take a billion dollars away from disabled veterans, they want
to stand and say I put my arms around disabled veterans, and we are
going to create a week for America to celebrate them.
I am going to blow the whistle on you. I believe that it is a matter
of principle that the Nation should not be taking money from one group
of deserving veterans to fund benefits for others. However, you should
also know that last month the Senate approved a bill that would cut
$912 million in pension benefits for wartime elderly indigent severely
disabled or housebound American veterans. A portion of the funding
saved by this unprecedented cut in veterans' benefits would be used to
fund oversized pensions for noncitizen, non-resident World War II
Filipino veterans and for other veterans' programs.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the country is probably shocked hearing me say
something like this. But, Mr. Speaker, we are here on the floor to ask
for a designation that the country support the ideals for which men and
women fought for and are now disabled, while in the same stroke this
very Congress wants to cut veterans' benefits from those very same
people when they are asking the country to celebrate their ideals.
The bill that was in the Senate is Senate 1315. There was a bill here
in the House, H.R. 760. That bill was voted out of the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee on a party-line vote. That hardly ever happens. A
party-line vote hardly ever happens in the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
They voted to eliminate a special monthly pension for severely
disabled veterans over 65 who are receiving pensions for wartime
services. The special monthly pension provides an additional payment of
up to $2,200 per year to the most severely disabled veterans. In 2006,
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims overturned the
Department of Veterans Affairs decision that denied the special monthly
pension to an 86-year-old legally blind World War II veteran, Robert A.
Hartness, who was also receiving a VA pension granted to low-income,
disabled veterans.
The court reversed the VA's denial of benefits to Mr. Hartness and
required them to begin paying this special monthly pension. The court
held that the United States law requires an award of a special monthly
pension to a veteran eligible for VA nonservice-connected disability
pension if, in addition to being at least 65 years old, the
[[Page 12012]]
veteran has a disability rating of at least 60 percent or is
permanently housebound.
The Senate bill, S. 1315, would override the court decision
legislatively, and it is also what H.R. 760 sought to do. According to
the VA, more than 20,200 veterans could be affected by this
unprecedented cut in veterans' benefits.
This cut in veterans' benefits that goes to the disabled is opposed
by the American Legion, AMVETS, the National Association of Uniformed
Services, and other veterans' service organizations. The following
excerpt is from an April 25, 2008, letter to all Members of Congress
from the American Legion: ``The American Legion believes the sacrifice
of these heroes warrants relief. Balancing the books on the backs of
the very patriots that protected and defended this Nation is
unconscionable. Don't make a grave mistake in the name of fairness,
equality, or even fiscal responsibility. Do what is right.''
I wholeheartedly agree. Congress has an obligation to protect those
veterans who are the most vulnerable. They have no voice; and, indeed,
many of them are so severely disabled they are housebound and require
aid and attendants. I personally find appalling the notion of taking
benefits from these disabled veterans to create a new benefit for other
veterans, especially those of a foreign nation.
There are better ways to fund new entitlements than to cut benefits
from aging veterans who need us most, violating the principle of honor
that defined their service and our obligation to both them and the
Nation they served.
I believe that our veterans are our country's most precious asset. I
also believe that those are the ideals for which you seek to recognize
in the bill that is before us. I would remind every Member who votes in
support of this bill, please recognize that when you come to the floor
and there is presented to you a Senate amended bill that would repeal
the special monthly pension for the Nation's most vulnerable veterans,
those of whom are wartime elderly, indigent, disabled and homebound,
that you remember the vote you cast this day. Because if you embrace to
defend these disabled veterans who sacrificed for the ideals and the
heritage of this country, do not cut their veterans' benefits.
It was done in committee. It was done in the Senate. We have to
defend the most vulnerable and those who do not have a voice.
I support what is in front of us, but I do not support the rationale
of inoculation before you bring a bill to this floor that will cut a
billion dollars from these wartime elderly, disabled indigent veterans.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, for thousands of our Nation's soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines, the sacrifices of war far outlast the war
itself. There are more than 2 million veterans with service-connected
injuries or illnesses, including thousands who have returned from the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks to advances in medical science,
the vast majority of American servicemembers wounded in combat survive
traumatic events that would have proven deadly in previous wars.
Previous generations of veterans have come home wounded from
battlefields in Europe, the Korean peninsula, and the jungles of
Vietnam. They have returned to America with permanent damage to limb or
spirit.
Today's veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom are suffering tragic injuries from IED attacks and other
hazards that are filling our military hospitals with victims who have
lost limbs, with severe burns, and with head injuries.
We owe a debt of gratitude to all of these veterans whose physical or
psychological well-being was permanently damaged in service to their
country.
In my own district, disabled veterans have also had to endure the
closing of the Southeast Louisiana VA Hospital due to damage from
Hurricane Katrina. As a result, approximately 212,000 veterans in a 23-
parish area in southeast Louisiana have to travel up to 4 hours to go
to other VA hospitals just to receive basic care. And as we all know,
gas prices are now topping $4 a gallon, which further adds to the cost
our disabled veterans are facing when they travel to and from VA
facilities for their health care.
I want to express as well how gravely concerned I am at the high cost
of fuel and how it is affecting their ability to stretch their limited
pension and compensation dollars. I call on the Democratic leadership
in Congress to step forward and join us to help these disabled veterans
by addressing this problem and enacting a strong national energy policy
that increases supply to lower gas prices.
I want to thank my colleagues in the House for passing the VA Medical
Facility Authorization and Lease Act authorizing $625 million for
Southeast Louisiana VA Hospital that was closed down due to damage
caused by Hurricane Katrina. And I want to specifically recognize the
leadership of Chairman Bob Filner and Ranking Member Steve Buyer in
passing this critical legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our disabled veterans for their
sacrifice and contributions to the cause of freedom. The intent of this
bill is to express America's eternal gratitude to these courageous
heroes, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it. America's
disabled veterans have honored us with their service and selfless duty.
We should honor them by passing this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker and
Members of the House, House Concurrent Resolution 336 honors the
sacrifices of the disabled veterans, and I urge all Members to support
it.
I am very proud of the fact that we have just passed the largest VA
budget in the history of the United States of America. Now a lot of
times people talk the talk, but we as Members of this body need to walk
the walk for the veterans. And when I said that I have visited the
facilities in Puerto Rico and St. Thomas, I have also visited the
facilities in Louisiana, and I made sure that we put the money into the
budget so we could rebuild that facility for veterans in that area.
I urge my colleagues to unanimously support H. Con. Res. 336.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. Res.
332, which recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General
Assembly came together to pass the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, which serves as a set of standards for all people and all
nations of the world to strive toward.
Drawing upon principles from both the U.S. Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
recognizes the fundamental human rights bestowed to each person on this
Earth regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. Ronald Reagan once
described the U.S. Constitution as ``a kind of covenant. It is a
covenant we've made not only with ourselves but with all of mankind.''
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights shines light in the darkest
corners of the world and reminds those in the most desperate of
situations that every person is entitled to respect and dignity.
It has been my distinct privilege to serve as co-chair of the
Congressional Human Rights Caucus for the past 7 years. The Caucus was
founded in 1983 by the late Congressman Tom Lantos and former
Congressman John Porter for Members of Congress to work to defend the
rights of individuals worldwide as defined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights.
With the passage of this important resolution, I reaffirm my
commitment to serve as a voice for the voiceless and continue to ensure
that human rights remains a priority in the U.S. Congress.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting this statement to record my
strong and enthusiastic support of the House Resolution honoring the
sacrifices and contributions made by disabled American veterans.
Today I wish to recognize these men and women for their patriotic
contribution in our armed services; who have given so much to defend
our Nation.
The brave men and women who defend this country under threat of that
ultimate sacrifice
[[Page 12013]]
truly are our guardian angels. They fight with passion and dedication
for an ideal that we all cherish, the notion that this is the land of
opportunity, the land of the free. Unfortunately, that freedom comes at
a price and too often our guardian angels come home wounded and
disabled. They defend us and are willing to throw themselves in harms
way before us, and we must not forget that.
These wounded warriors are an inspiration to all of us, and we owe
them so very much. It is our duty to them that we always remember what
they have fought and sacrificed for. We must always remember the sacred
agreement we made with these servicemen, if they go off and fight for
us we will forever be in their debt and we must provide for them and
their loved ones.
My praise and thanks fall well short of equaling the gift of freedom
our veterans bestowed on all of us. They bare the scars that remind us
all how costly freedom can be, and all I have to offer in return is my
eternal gratitude.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 336.
There is no greater American hero than the military veteran, and I am
proud to join my fellow colleagues today in honoring the sacrifices and
contributions of our disabled American veterans.
The American soldier is the embodiment of hard work, patriotism, and
service, and the soldier who has sacrificed his body for the freedom
and liberty of others around the world deserves our utmost respect. The
blood spilled on our own soil and abroad is a lasting reminder of the
commitment that our soldiers have sacrificed for us all, and every
citizen owes a deep and lasting gratitude to these brave warriors.
Mr. Speaker, our departed soldiers must never be forgotten, and those
injured veterans from wars past and those just returning from the
battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan should receive our Nation's and
this Congress's unwavering support and reverence. It is an honor to
rise today and praise the bravest of all Americans--the disabled
military veteran. America will never forget your valor during our most
trying times, and we are forever grateful for your dedicated service
and selfless sacrifice to our Nation.
General Leave
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res.
336.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
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 concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 336.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
{time} 1500
NATIONAL D-DAY REMEMBRANCE DAY
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1235) expressing support for
the designation of National D-Day Remembrance Day, and recognizing the
spirit, courage, and sacrifice of the men and women who fought and won
World War II.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1235
Whereas June 6, 2008, marks the 64th anniversary of D-Day,
the day of the beginning of the Allied assault against the
Axis forces at Normandy, France, during World War II;
Whereas the D-Day assault, codenamed Operation Overlord,
was the most extensive amphibious invasion ever to occur, and
involved 5,000 ships, over 11,000 sorties of Allied aircraft,
and 150,000 American, British, and Canadian troops on the
first day of the operation;
Whereas the D-Day assault was among the most important
events of World War II, as the success of the Allied landings
in Normandy provided the foothold for the liberation of
France and the eventual Allied advancement into Germany,
leading ultimately to the Allied victory in Europe;
Whereas the brave men and women of our armed services who
participated in the D-Day assault forever changed the course
of history by starting the liberation of occupied Europe from
Nazi Germany;
Whereas 5 separate beaches were assaulted, with American
forces under the command of Lieutenant General Omar Bradley
attacking Omaha and Utah beaches, and British and Canadian
forces under the command of General Miles Dempsey attacking
Gold, Juno, and Sword beaches;
Whereas according to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, American
troops would ``accept nothing less than full victory'';
Whereas American troops displayed tremendous heroism,
dedication, and strength in storming the beaches of Normandy
against a heavily fortified enemy;
Whereas American troops suffered significant losses during
the assault, including over 6,500 casualties;
Whereas June 6, 1944, is one of the most significant dates
in the history of the United States;
Whereas the National D-Day Museum was dedicated on June 6,
2000, in New Orleans, Louisiana;
Whereas Congress designated the museum as ``America's
National World War II Museum'' in 2003;
Whereas the museum has welcomed 1,800,000 visitors since
its opening, and currently sees an average of 17,000 visitors
a month;
Whereas the National World War II Museum is the only museum
in the United States that exists for the exclusive purpose of
interpreting the American experience during World War II on
both the homefront and battlefront and, in doing so, covers
all the branches of the Armed Forces and the Merchant
Marines;
Whereas the museum interprets the American experience
during World War II, celebrates the American spirit,
recognizes the teamwork, optimism, courage, and sacrifice of
the men and women who won World War II, and promotes the
exploration and expression of these values by future
generations; and
Whereas it would be appropriate to designate June 6, 2008,
as National D-Day Remembrance Day: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the
designation of National D- Day Remembrance Day, recognizes
and honors the veterans who served on D-Day, and thanks them
for their spirit, courage, and sacrifice.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Scalise) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week, on June 6, we celebrated the anniversary of
one of our greatest military accomplishments and an historic event that
changed the face of our Nation and the world.
On June 6, 1944, the largest seaboard invasion in history began the
2-month Battle of Normandy. The D-day invasion began during the night,
and continued with air and naval attacks and an amphibious attack in
the early morning hours.
The D-day operation of June 6, 1944 brought together the land, air
and sea forces of the Allied armies in what become known as the largest
invading force in human history. Operation Overlord landed five naval
assault divisions to the beaches of Normandy, code-named Utah, Omaha,
Gold, Juno and Sword.
The invasion force included 7,000 ships and landing craft manned by
195,000 Navy personnel from eight Allied countries. Almost 133,000
troops from England, Canada and the United States landed on D-day.
Casualties during the landing was over 10,000.
New Orleans is the home of a wonderful museum, the National World War
II Museum. This museum opened its doors on June 6, 2000, and paid
tribute not only to the D-day but all of the efforts in World War II.
One of the reasons it is located in New Orleans is it was the home of
Andrew Jackson Higgins.
The historian, Steven Ambrose, reported that General Eisenhower once
[[Page 12014]]
told them that Higgins was the man who won the war for us. Eisenhower
explained to him that if Higgins had not designated and built the
LCVPs, we never could have landed over the open beach. The whole
strategy of the war would have been different.
According to the National World War II Museum, the Higgins work force
was the first in New Orleans to be racially integrated. This work force
shattered production records, turning out more than 200,000 boats,
including 12,500 LCVPs, or Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel, by the
end of the war.
General Eisenhower's D-day message read: You are about to embark upon
the greatest crusade, toward which we have strived these many months.
The eyes of the world are upon you, and hopes and praise of liberty-
loving people everywhere march with you.
The world still recalls D-day, and the efforts of the United States
and our Allies to end fascism in Europe and across the globe. It is
fitting that we recall these accomplishments, and this day, and the
service and sacrifice that hastened the end of World War II.
The world still looks to us for leadership for leadership and to be a
beacon to illustrate the path ahead. Let us always strive to provide
this light, this leadership and this wisdom to do what is right.
Last August I had the honor and privilege to visit the Normandy
American Cemetery and Memorial in France. While there I laid a wreath
of flowers in honor of the soldiers that fought and died at Normandy
and visited the graves of Floridians who gave their life fighting the
Nazis.
Tori Robinson, an American gospel singer based in Paris, also a
constituent of mine, sung at the ceremony. Her version of God bless
America brought people from all over the memorial. There this honor was
shared by all visitors in this holy place.
I want to take a special note to honor Chairman Obey and Chairman
Murtha for their hard work in getting funds for this new Normandy
Visitors Center appropriated. My visit to this center followed theirs,
which was just dedicated on June 6, 2007, the 63rd anniversary of D-
day.
This visitors center truly paid tribute to the soldiers who stormed
those beaches and gave visitors a true sense of what these men and
their loved ones was going through during the war that led up to the D-
day invasion.
I encourage all Americans to visit this hallowed site. Most of the
visitors are from Europe and come to honor the sacrifice of the young
Americans made for their freedom.
Many brave men and women died on this day, 64 years ago, to restore
the freedom we enjoy today. Here rests in honored glory a comrade in
arms only God knows, reads just one of the 9,387 grave markers at the
American cemetery in Normandy, France. We honor them by remembering and
this resolution calls us to remember.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 1235,
a measure expressing support for the designation of National D-Day
Remembrance Day, and recognizing the spirit, courage and sacrifice of
the men and women who fought and won World War II. D-day is one of the
most significant days in our Nation's history, and we should never
forget the bravery and determination displayed on the beaches of
Northern France.
This resolution also recognizes the National World War II Museum in
New Orleans. The museum was dedicated in 2000 as the National D-Day
Museum, and later in 2003, Congress designated the museum as America's
National World War II Museum. The museum has welcomed 1.8 million
visitors since its opening, and currently sees an average of 17,000
visitors a month.
The National World War II Museum is the only museum in the United
States that exists for the exclusive purpose of interpreting the
American experience during World War II. It celebrates the American
spirit, recognizes the teamwork, optimism, courage and sacrifices of
the men and women who won World War II, and promotes the exploration
and expression of these values by future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, no one can visit the American cemetery at
Normandy without gaining a profound appreciation for the courage and
the sense of self-sacrifice demonstrated by every one of our soldiers
who fought to take that beach and begin the liberation of Europe.
For years, families who went to that cemetery to think about their
loved ones, think about their loss and, at the same time, think about
their pride, had a totally inadequate place in which to sit and think
or perhaps retreat from the rest of the people around them for a few
precious moments. And I am so pleased that I was able to work with
Congressman Murtha, with Congressman Walsh, with Congressman Hobson, in
order to provide the funding for the new visitors center which is now
at that location. It is a spectacularly beautiful, and yet subtle
tribute to each and every American who fought there.
For years, that visitors center did not tell an adequate story of the
sense of self-sacrifice that was exhibited in those days. Now it
finally does, and I think it will serve as an inspiration, not just to
every American who visits that site, but also to every person from any
part of the world who values freedom and values sacrifice.
I know of no monument that is more eloquent in paying tribute to both
than that monument, and I think it's fitting that we pass a resolution,
again, praising the courage and the dedication of the Americans who
fought to make the entire world free.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity, Mr. Boozman
from Arkansas.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Scalise for bringing
this forward. It's important for us periodically to pause and think
about the tremendous sacrifice, especially while the men and women that
made all of this possible are still with us, that we can pause and just
think of the sacrifice that they did on this day.
I also want to welcome Mr. Scalise to the Veterans' Affairs Committee
again, that he has volunteered to become a part of that committee and
to work in a very bipartisan way so that we can do our best for
veterans.
On June 6, 1944, the United States participated in the largest
seaboard invasion in history. Countless men and women served their
country that day, and I stand before you to ask for your support for
the designation of National D-Day Remembrance Day.
Preparations for D-day began long before June 6, 1944. In fact,
discussions about an allied invasion began in 1942. The Germans
expected an invasion along the north coast of France and built up
forces along the narrowest portion of the channel. However, the Allies
planned to land just south of the German build-up. In order to execute
a successful campaign, our men and women, along with Allied forces in
other countries, not only had to plan an attack, but also to contend
with many of the same issues we ourselves are faced with today.
War planners projected 5,000 tons of gasoline would be needed daily
for the first 20 days after the initial invasion. 3,489 tons of soap
would be needed in the first four months after the invasion.
Approximately 300 planes would drop bombs along the coast of Normandy.
Six parachute regiments, including 13,000 men, needed to be
transported. 5,000 vessels would transport men and 30,000 vehicles
across the English channel.
It's clear that the efforts that led to D-day and the many days
afterward were that of dedicated men and women who sacrificed their
jobs, their families and in many cases their own lives to ensure that
the United States of America and the Allied forces would be successful.
Words cannot express our gratitude for their courage and spirit.
However,
[[Page 12015]]
by designating a National D-Day Remembrance Day, we can continue to
remember the sacrifice unwavering commitment to our country, and
determination of the men and women who fought and won World War II. I
urge my colleagues to remember and honor these men and women by
supporting this resolution.
I also want to comment on Mr. Obey, what he said in regard to the
actual monument. And I've had the opportunity to be there. My daughter,
while she was vacationing in Europe, in her early twenties, she and her
friends enjoyed it so much that they actually were just going and
planning on spending an afternoon, wound up spending the night, and
were so impressed with the way that everything's portrayed that, again
they did a good job.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux).
Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution
1235, by my fellow delegation member, Congressman Scalise. This
resolution thoughtfully commemorates the sacrifices of our armed
services on that fateful day, 64 years ago on the beach of Normandy.
I was reminded of that sacrifice when I visited veterans over
Memorial Day at a ceremony at the USS Kidd in Baton Rouge. I also
attended an event for the Louisiana Honor Air Program, which helps our
World War II veterans, many themselves D-day survivors, visit the World
War II memorial for the first time.
The D-day assault was the most extensive amphibious invasion in
history. Its success was a shining example of the strength and
professionalism of our armed services.
As our thoughts and prayers go out to our young men and women who
fight for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, we pay tribute to their
predecessors by supporting this resolution to designate a National D-
Day Remembrance Day.
Louisiana played a huge part in the Allies' success at D-day. Indeed
the amphibious Higgins boat itself was developed in Louisiana and based
on boats built to navigate our swamps and marshes. For this reason, New
Orleans is home to the National D-Day Museum and is designated by
Congress as America's National World War II museum.
I support the resolution, and strongly encourage this House to
designate June 6, 2008, as National D-Day Remembrance Day.
{time} 1515
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, about 6 months ago
I got an unexpected call in my office from a fellow named Carlo
DiVirgilio from Upstate New York. I had never met the man, and when I
got on the phone, he said, I just learned that you were in Congress. I
just wanted to ask you a question. Was your father Dr. Lungren? And I
said, Yes, he was. And he said, I served with him in Normandy 60 years
ago.
And he recounted to me some of the battles they went through: the
Battle of Senlo, the Battle of Mortain. And he talked about the fear
that young men had at that time as they got up to the front lines how
they feared death. One of the great things he said to me was, When we
were around your father, we felt safe. We felt that we were not going
to die.
These were young men who were sent into battle not knowing whether
they were going to win but knowing that they had to fight. Had the
outcome been different, history would have changed. We would not have
liberated Europe. D-day is such an important date that we need to
commemorate it as this resolution does.
It is a date that gives us pause because we understand that when
Dwight D. Eisenhower made the decision to go, it was not certain that
it would succeed. As a matter of fact, those who come here to our
Nation's Capitol and go into the Rotunda, they see a statue of Dwight
Eisenhower, President of the United States. But he is not there
depicted as President of the United States. Rather, he is depicted as
the Supreme Allied Commander, the first leader of combined forces in
the history of warfare. And he's standing there with a gesture that
commemorates a photograph that was taken at the time that he went to go
see the paratroopers he was sending off to war.
You have to understand. He realized that maybe as many as six or
eight out of every ten that he looked at were going to die, and they
were going to die because he was sending them into battle. But he had
the courage as a leader to look them in the face, to talk to them
before they went off to war and to give them the best that he could.
And then, remarkably, after he had addressed them, he got back into
his military automobile and turned to his aide and gave him a piece of
paper. And on that piece of paper, General Eisenhower had written out a
statement; and he said, If this fails, I want this statement to be
read. And what was the statement? It gave all support and all honor to
the men who served under him, and he took all blame and responsibility
for its failure. What a remarkable example of leadership at that time.
Today, when we hear the first response from many people, I don't care
whether they're in professional sports or whether they're in politics
or whether they're in business, when something goes wrong, almost the
first instinct is to point the finger at somebody else to say, It
wasn't my job. It wasn't my responsibility.
But Dwight Eisenhower was not that kind of person. He is the
definition of a leader. He is one who made the tough decision to go on
June 6, 64 years ago, not being guaranteed a success but knowing that
the risk was worth it. There was nothing else he could do. And then
saying, If this fails, it is all on me.
Ladies and gentlemen, as we remember today that great day, the great
sacrifice of all, including my father, let us remember the example of a
great leader, Dwight Eisenhower, who told us what it is to lead: Not
for vain glory, but rather for great purpose.
Thank you very much.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, June 6, 2008, marked the 64th
anniversary of D-day, one of the most significant days in our Nation's
history. June 6, 1944, marked the beginning of the Allied assault
against the Axis forces in Normandy, France, and the beginning of the
end of World War II; and it started the liberation of occupied Europe
from Nazi Germany.
The D-day invasion was the largest amphibious assault the world had
ever seen with more than 5,000 ships and over 150,000 American,
British, and Canadian troops involved on that single day.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member who is honored to represent the people of
Southeast Louisiana, I am proud of the role that my State played on D-
day. In New Orleans, Andrew Jackson Higgins designed the LCVPs, or the
Higgins boats, that were used extensively in World War II for
amphibious landings. Higgins and the 30,000 Louisiana workers of
Higgins Industries built and tested the Higgins boats in Southeast
Louisiana during the war.
The Higgins boat was crucial to the success of D-day. According to
General Eisenhower, the Allies would not have been able to land on an
open beach without the Higgins boat. General Eisenhower claimed that
Higgins was the man who won the war for us.
Louisiana is also home to many of the brave men and women who fought
and won in World War II. J.J. Witmeyer, who lives in the New Orleans
suburb of Hanrahan, participated in the D-day invasion. Mr. Witmeyer
served as an infantry soldier and landed on Utah Beach. Mr. Witmeyer
describes his experience of landing at Normandy on Higgins boats like
this: ``When the ramp went down, you were going through the gates of
hell . . . you didn't know how deep the water was, where the beach was
and they were firing at you.''
Mr. Witmeyer escaped injury that day but was later wounded twice. He
won a battlefield commission as a captain, served as an acting military
governor in Dortmund, Germany, and as a
[[Page 12016]]
commandant of two camps for displaced war victims in Czechoslovakia.
It is because of the courage and sacrifice of soldiers like J.J.
Witmeyer and the ingenuity and dedication of individuals like Andrew
Higgins that we were successful on June 6, 1944, and went on to win the
war.
The brave men and women of our Nation's Greatest Generation displayed
tremendous heroism, dedication, and strength and forever changed the
course of history. General Dwight D. Eisenhower said we would ``accept
nothing less than full victory,'' and our troops did just that.
Our success did not come without significant losses, however.
American forces suffered over 3,300 soldiers killed in action and an
additional 3,000 soldiers suffered injury.
Mr. Speaker, the courage and sacrifice displayed by the Allied forces
on June 6, 1944, should never be forgotten, and we should always
remember D-day and honor the men and women who fought and persevered
for the price of freedom. D-day will forever be an important part of
U.S. history, and the day deserves to be recognized. The Members of the
Armed Forces who participated in the invasion are true American heroes.
That is why I introduced House Resolution 1235 calling on Congress to
support the designation of a national D-day Remembrance Day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize and honor the veterans
who served on D-day and join me in thanking them for their spirit,
courage, and sacrifice. I also urge my colleagues to join me in paying
tribute to the National World War II Museum in New Orleans for sharing
their stories with future generations. For so many years, the Greatest
Generation was reluctant to share their stories, and fortunately for
all of us, as time went on, more and more have been willing to open up
and give that testimony; and we are so honored to have much of that
testimony collected at the National World War II Museum for future
generations to share.
By passing House Resolution 1235, we honor D-day. More importantly,
we honor the men and women of the Greatest Generation who made June 6,
1944, one of the most important days in our Nation's history, a day
that all men can be proud of, a day that all Americans should never
forget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
General Leave
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks and include any extraneous material on House Resolution
1235.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1235, a
resolution to designate National D-Day Remembrance Day and recognize
the spirit, courage, and sacrifice of the men and women who fought and
won World War II. One of modern history's defining events, D-day was
the climactic engagement of the Second World War. On June 6, 1944, an
Allied Expeditionary Force representing twelve nations launched more
than 5,000 boats and ships, 11,000 aircraft, 28,000 aerial sorties, and
landed 150,000 ground troops. Among those troops were more than 30
soldiers from Bedford, Virginia, a small, rural community which
experienced the highest per capita loss rate of any community in the
United States on D-day. For this reason, Bedford is the home to the
National D-Day Memorial, which was dedicated by President Bush on June
6, 2001. The National D-Day Memorial exists in tribute to the valor,
fidelity, and sacrifice of the Allied Forces on D-day. The Memorial
preserves the lessons and legacy of that fateful day and reminds all
who enter it of the heavy price that heartland communities have paid,
and still pay, for freedom.
I urge all members to support H. Res. 1235 and honor the great
sacrifice of our veterans who served on D-day and in all the other
conflicts that preserved American freedom throughout our history.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1235, a measure
expressing support for the designation of National D-Day Remembrance
Day, and recognizing the spirit, courage, and sacrifice of the men and
women who fought and won World War II.
On June 6, 1944, the largest sea-borne invasion in military history
led to the defeat of Hitler and the Nazis' stranglehold on Europe.
Nearly 7,000 ships and landing craft, loaded with American, British and
other troops, crossed the English Channel to destroy tyranny and
restore freedom to Europe. Nearly 3,500 lives were lost in this immense
display of courage and sacrifice.
The heroism displayed by the Allied forces on D-day should never be
forgotten and we should always honor the men and women who saved
democracy from the shadow of oppression. That is why we should approve
H.R. 1235 calling on Congress to support the designation of a National
D-Day Remembrance Day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to recognize and honor the veterans
who served on D-day, and join me in supporting this bill thanking them
for their courage and sacrifice.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
unanimously support House Resolution 1235.
I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
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. 1235.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________
PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE IF OFFERED TODAY
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that if the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) offers a resolution as a
question of the privileges of the House at any time on the legislative
day of June 10, 2008--
(1) the previous question shall be considered as ordered thereon
without intervening motion except one motion to refer; and
(2) the Speaker may postpone further proceedings on such a vote on a
motion to refer as though under clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
____________________
TO AWARD POSTHUMOUSLY A CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL TO CONSTANTINO BRUMIDI
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 254) to award posthumously a Congressional gold medal
to Constantino Brumidi.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 254
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) On July 26, 1805, Constantino Brumidi was born in Rome,
Italy of an Italian mother and a Greek father who inspired
him with a love of liberty.
(2) While Constantino Brumidi's Greek ancestry stirred his
passion for liberty and citizenship, his Italian heritage
provided the art styles of the Renaissance and the Baroque
which influenced the artwork of the United States Capitol.
(3) Constantino Brumidi became a citizen of the United
States as soon as he was able, embracing its history, values,
and ideals.
(4) Beginning in 1855, Constantino Brumidi designed and
decorated 1 House and 5 Senate committee rooms in the
Capitol, as well as the Senate Reception Room, the Office of
the Vice President, and, most notably, the President's Room,
which represents Brumidi's supreme effort ``to make beautiful
the Capitol'' of the United States.
(5) In 1865, Constantino Brumidi completed in just 11
months his masterpiece, ``The
[[Page 12017]]
Apotheosis of Washington'', in the eye of the Capitol dome.
(6) In 1871, Constantino Brumidi created the first tribute
to an African American in the Capitol when he placed the
figure of Crispus Attucks at the center of his fresco of the
Boston Massacre.
(7) In 1878, Constantino Brumidi, at the age of 72 and in
poor health, began work on the Rotunda frieze, which
chronicles the history of America.
(8) On February 19, 1880, Constantino Brumidi died at the
age of 74, four and a half months after slipping and nearly
falling from a scaffold while working on the Rotunda frieze.
(9) Constantino Brumidi, proud of his artistic
accomplishments and devoted to his adopted country, said,
``My one ambition and my daily prayer is that I may live long
enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country on
earth in which there is liberty.''.
(10) Constantino Brumidi's life and work exemplify the
lives of millions of immigrants who came to pursue the
American dream.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.
(a) Presentation Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate
shall make appropriate arrangements for the posthumous
presentation, on behalf of Congress, of a gold medal of
appropriate design to Constantino Brumidi, in recognition of
his contributions to the Nation.
(2) Display of medal in capitol visitor center.--The
Architect of the Capitol shall arrange for the gold medal
presented under this subsection to be displayed in the
Capitol Visitor Center, as part of an exhibit honoring
Constantino Brumidi.
(b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
(referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall strike a
gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and inscriptions
to be determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2 under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price
sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and
the cost of the gold medal.
SEC. 4. STATUS OF MEDALS.
(a) National Medals.--The medals struck under this Act are
national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31,
United States Code.
(b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under this
Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.
(a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to
be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund, such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs
of the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 3 shall be
deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 254 which would
posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal to Constantino Brumidi
and would authorize the striking of duplicate medals for sale to the
public.
Mr. Speaker, for those of us who work here in the Capitol, we are
very fortunate to be surrounded by Constantino Brumidi's genius every
day. Brumidi's awesome, inspiring murals and frescos are remarkable as
they are ubiquitous. Constantino Brumidi's works can be found in three
Senate Appropriations Committee rooms, the House Appropriations
Committee room, the Senate Democratic Policy Committee room, the
Brumidi corridors, the Senate reception area, the Office of the Vice
President and, of course, the Rotunda. Like his masterful works
throughout the Capitol, Constantino Brumidi's story is uniquely
American.
Brumidi was born in Rome in 1805 to an Italian mother and a Greek
father. His artistic ability was cultivated at an early age. In his
early years, he was commissioned to paint frescos and murals in various
Roman palaces. And then in 1849, as did so many of our ancestors,
Brumidi, who was already an established artist in Italy and who spent 3
years working for Pope Gregory XVI in the Vatican, migrated to the
United States and began a new life in New York City. There he proudly
became a naturalized American citizen in 1852.
It was on a return trip from Mexico that Constantino Brumidi first
saw the U.S. Capitol. It was a fortuitous twist of fate: at a time when
Congress and President Franklin Pierce were preparing to expand the
Capitol, a word-class Italian American artist, who just happened to be
passing through Washington, inspired by both the freedoms and liberties
represented by the seat of Congress and the vast open spaces in the
Capitol that seemed to invite frescos and murals, offered his services
to Quartermaster General Montgomery C. Meigs. Wisely, Meigs
commissioned Brumidi to become the artist of the Capitol.
Brumidi's first work was in the Agricultural Committee room. This
masterpiece received such favorable attention that he was given a raise
and tasked with painting other larger works culminating with the works
in the Capitol Rotunda.
{time} 1530
There is no work in the Capitol more impressive or more renowned than
``The Apotheosis of Washington.'' Brumidi completed the fresco in 11
months at the end of the Civil War, soon after the new dome was
completed. This absolutely stunning work soars 180 feet above the
Rotunda floor. To compensate for the distance from the floor to the
ceiling, Brumidi, who spent years mastering depth and scale, painted
15-foot tall figures so that the work could be appreciated from the
Rotunda floor.
Another Brumidi masterpiece, ``The Frieze of American History,''
appears just underneath the dome and spans the entire 360 degrees of
the Capitol Rotunda. The frieze, which initially looks to be carved or
sculpted, as all who view it believe it to be three dimensional, was,
in actuality, meticulously painted with the use of scaffolding. While
Brumidi first sketched a design of the frieze in 1859, Congress did not
authorize work to begin on this piece until 18 years later, in 1877.
The work masterfully displays America's history, beginning with the
landing of Christopher Columbus and continuing to the discovery of gold
in California. While many visitors to the Capitol have seen Brumidi's
genius in the frieze over the years, they may not realize that he
nearly lost his life while painting it. While working on a figure of
William Penn, 76-year-old Brumidi fell from the scaffolding, but saved
himself by clinging to the rung of a ladder for 15 long minutes before
he was rescued. While he subsequently ascended the scaffolding once
more to continue his work, he died a few months later in 1880. It took
two additional artists and 73 years to finish the masterpiece that
Constantino Brumidi first began.
Mr. Speaker, Constantino Brumidi's service to the Capitol, and our
country, span the administration of six, six Presidents: Franklin
Pierce, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S.
Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes. On and on, Brumidi worked. All of us here
in the Capitol that have the privilege of working in this living
museum, as well as the millions of visitors that tour our building each
year, who admire and relish Brumidi's works, but precious few know the
story of the artist of the Capitol.
In addition to awarding Constantino Brumidi with the Congressional
Gold Medal, S. 254 directs the Architect of the Capitol to display the
gold medal as an exhibition in the new visitor's center dedicated to
Brumidi's life and work. I believe such an exhibit is long
[[Page 12018]]
past due and would be to the benefit of future generations of Americans
who come to see the Capitol and admire the brilliant works of
Constantino Brumidi, reminding us yet again that we are a Nation built
by immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, Constantino Brumidi was a great son of Italy and a great
American. His achievements are a great source of pride for Italian
Americans, and S. 254 would bestow Brumidi, and the Italian American
community, with the recognition the artist's great contributions so
rightly deserve.
Special thanks are due to Representative Bill Pascrell from New
Jersey, the main sponsor of this bill that we have before us in the
House today.
And I'd like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of somebody
who visits us here in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, Joseph Grano,
who's the president of the Constantino Brumidi Society, for his long
and tireless efforts on this behalf.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great day for those who love fine art,
creativity, American history, and who appreciate the contributions of
Italian American immigrants and all immigrants for the culture and
history of our country.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 254, a bill to
award a Congressional Gold Medal honoring the great artistic work of
Constantino Brumidi on this great Capitol building. The bill was
introduced by Senator Enzi and has 99 cosponsors in the Senate, and in
the House, a companion bill was introduced by our colleague, Mr.
Pascrell, which has 307 cosponsors.
As we've heard much of Mr. Brumidi's history, he created artworks in
the House of Representatives Chamber, many committee rooms, the
President's Room, the Senate Chamber, and throughout the corridors of
the Capitol. His most famous work within these halls is ``The
Apotheosis of George Washington,'' which appears on the Capitol dome in
the Rotunda. Mr. Brumidi painted these hallowed halls, and in so doing,
he depicted the narrative that is the vivid history of these United
States.
Born in Italy in 1805, Constantino Brumidi studied at the Italian
Academy of the Arts. In 1852, at the age of 47, he emigrated to America
and devoted the rest of his years completing frescoes, sculptures, and
paintings in the Capitol Building.
The story of Constantino Brumidi is important not only because he was
the artist who gave life to these walls, but because his story is the
American story. He was an immigrant to this country, and he used the
skill that he had to contribute what he could. In the process, he, like
millions of others, built this country into what it is today.
Immigrants built this Nation's building, constructed its factories, fed
its people, and when called upon, defended its sovereignty. Men and
women from this great Nation's inception contributed whatever they
could to make this Nation better.
Constantino Brumidi contributed his talents as an artist. And now,
because of his efforts, we and all who walk through the Capitol may see
not only his talent but this country's history and be filled with the
same sense of awe and hope that filled those who walked these halls
before us. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a wonderful gift.
On February 19, 1880, at the age of 74, Constantino Brumidi died
four-and-a-half months after falling from a scaffolding while working
on the Rotunda frieze that chronicles the history of America. He spent
his entire time in this country contributing and attempting to fulfill
his life's goal. He said, ``My one ambition and my daily prayer is that
I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of the one country
on Earth in which there is liberty.''
As we stand here today and walk these halls, it is clear to all that
Constantino Brumidi accomplished his goal.
This bill awards Constantino Brumidi the Congressional Gold Medal for
his contribution. The medal will be displayed in the Capitol Visitor's
Center as part of a display honoring his work.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the bill's immediate passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the sponsor of the
bill, Bill Pascrell of New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand in strong support
of S. 254, or H.R. 1609 in the House, to award this posthumous
Congressional Gold Medal to Constantino Brumidi which would be
displayed in the Capitol Visitor's Center. This American immigrant was
the creator of some of the most beautiful works of art in the United
States Capitol Building.
As the sponsor of the House version of this bill and as cochair of
the Congressional Italian American delegation, this is an issue very
close to me, Mr. Speaker.
Now, these things don't happen in a vacuum. I want to express my
sincere gratitude to Senator Enzi and Senator Clinton, to Congresswoman
Carolyn Maloney, to Congressman John Mica, to Congressman Zack Space
and Gus Bilirakis, and my very close friend Gary Ackerman, John
Sarbanes, Michael Burgess, and Rick Renzi for their tireless work in
garnering support for this worthy initiative.
If it were not for the diligent advocacy efforts of the Constantino
Brumidi Society, the American Hellenic Educational Progressive
Association, and the National Italian American Foundation, we would not
be standing here today. It's as simple as that.
Born in Rome of Italian and Greek heritage in 1805, Constantino
Brumidi trained in drawing, painting and sculpture at Rome's
prestigious Accademia di San Luca.
In 1840, this rigorous artistic training was put on display when
Brumidi and several other artists were commissioned to restore the
richly decorated frescos in the Vatican Palace.
He immigrated to the United States in 1852, with nothing in his
pocket, and when he died, he had nothing in his pocket. His only
objective was to come here and become an American citizen, and he did
that in 5 years. He gave it all, as you walk through this beautiful
edifice of freedom that everyone knows all over the world.
In 25 years, from 1854 to 1879, he decorated the Capitol with murals
and frescos. His frescos in this Capitol were probably the first true
frescos to be painted in the United States of America.
Brumidi believed that the classical architecture of the Capitol
Building required real fresco, like the palaces of Augustus and Nero,
and the baths of Titus and Livia at Rome, and the admired relics of the
painting at Herculaneium and Pompei.
His art drew heavily on his training and experience in Rome,
incorporating the history and symbols of the United States into his
classical repertoire. His most significant influences included ancient
Greek and Roman wall paintings and Raphael's classical decoration in
the Vatican.
Although he's often called the Michelangelo of the Capitol, this
immigrant who came here and gave everything to this country, Brumidi
perhaps should be called the Raphael of the Capitol, since it was
Raphael who was his greatest inspiration.
Brumidi's creations in the Capitol Building include his masterpiece,
the allegorical fresco, ``The Apotheosis of Washington,'' in the 4,664-
square foot canopy over the eye of the dome, 180 feet above the floor
of the Rotunda. He also painted the extensive frescos in the Brumidi
corridors throughout this Capitol.
His last years were spent painting the historic scenes in the Rotunda
frieze, even carrying out his own historic research for his work.
Outside of his work in this Capitol, he also was well-connected in
the Catholic church. His commissions included altar pieces and murals
in important cathedrals in Mexico City, New York City, Washington,
Baltimore, and Philadelphia.
The consummate American, Brumidi is reported to have remarked: ``My
one ambition and my daily prayer is that I may live long enough to make
beautiful the Capitol of the one country on Earth which there is
liberty.''
Sadly, at the time of his death in 1880, as I said, he was penniless.
Following his death, his work was roundly criticized by the artistic
establishment
[[Page 12019]]
of his day. However, the 1970s, not that far long ago, brought a
renewed appreciation for Victorian architecture and decoration and the
growth of the historic preservation, and work was done to restore
Brumidi's art to its former glory. Today's scholars are able to fully
comprehend the full extent of his talent.
Even though he is long gone, it is imperative that we fully recognize
the transcendental beauty, the intricate grace he brought to the
building that we stand in and that we work in every day.
There is widespread bipartisan support for this initiative. You heard
how many cosponsors in the Senate, as my good friend from West Virginia
pointed out how many, 307, right here in the House of Representatives.
What great testimony.
I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to support this legislation and to
remember the background of this individual, his Italian and his Greek
heritage, and think of all the immigrants when we think of Brumidi and
his contributions.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he would consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride in support of Senate bill
254 to posthumously award Constantino Brumidi the Congressional Gold
Medal. We have just heard from the previous speakers the life and times
of this inspired artist with whom I'm very proud to share the same
Greek heritage.
Many walk through the halls of Congress, but do not know much about
the man who dedicated most of his professional life to beautifying it.
Constantino Brumidi, a Greek and Italian immigrant, came to America
in search of freedom and opportunity. What he accomplished rivals most
any immigrant success story. Constantino Brumidi's life and work
exemplify the lives of millions of immigrants who came to pursue the
American dream.
{time} 1545
Soon after becoming an American citizen, Brumidi was commissioned to
decorate the structure which houses the greatest democratic institution
in world history. This feat is a testament both to Brumidi's resolve,
and our great Nation's willingness to embrace those who want to share
in the American dream.
I would also love this award to be accompanied with a statue that
would adorn the Capitol Visitors Center. That's why I have introduced
H.R. 1313. A statue of Brumidi, along with a Congressional Gold Medal,
will serve as a shining example of American ideals and inspire people
everywhere who wish to embrace freedom.
While it has taken over 130 years, it is never too late for the
installment of this Gold Medal in recognition of the contributions of
Constantino Brumidi to the Nation. Congratulations, and I urge all my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank my good friend and colleague from
the great State of New York for his hard work on this and so many
endeavors. And I rise today, as the cochair and cofounder on the
Congressional Caucus on Hellenic Issues, in strong support of S. 254,
to award posthumously a Congressional Gold Medal to Constantino
Brumidi.
I'm so pleased to join 307 of my colleagues here in this legislative
body. We were led so well by our colleague and good friend,
Representative Pascrell. And we acknowledge the hard work of
Congressman Pascrell and also the Hellenic Caucus and the Italian-
American Caucus in getting the necessary cosponsors.
Brumidi was the son of a Greek father and an Italian mother. He fled
Rome and immigrated to the United States in 1852. From 1868 to 1879, he
was a resident in my congressional district of New York City. And while
he was there, he painted 43 murals at St. Stephen's Church, which is in
my district, and scholars come from around the world to study his work
there, and here in the Capitol.
He is most famous, however, for his artistic achievement here in our
great Capitol. ``The Apotheosis of George Washington'' on the dome in
the Rotunda is one of the highlights of his brilliant work. He was
called the Michelangelo of the Capitol.
He worked flat on his back on wooden scaffolding through the intense
summer temperatures, and he created masterpieces throughout our
Capitol. His artwork can be found in the Chamber, the House of
Representatives Chamber, several committee rooms, the President's Room,
the Senate Reception Room, and truly throughout the corridors of our
Capitol. I am thrilled that we are recognizing such an outstanding
artist and an important contributor to the history of art and the
history of our Nation.
The Capitol building is special because of its beautiful architecture
and priceless artistic treasures. Without Brumidi's influence, tours of
the Capitol simply would not be certainly as beautiful or interesting
to Americans. He is truly deserving of the honor we are bestowing upon
him. Like many immigrants, he has brought many treasures to our
country.
I thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their
important work in bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill, S. 254.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 1010) recognizing the importance of
manufactured housing in the United States.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1010
Whereas manufactured housing plays a vital role in meeting
the housing needs of the people of the United States and is
an important source of quality, affordable housing, including
both homeownership and rental housing;
Whereas the manufactured housing industry in the United
States has approximately $6,000,000,000 annually in sales and
employs approximately 70,000 people in factories and retail
centers alone;
Whereas 18,000,000 people in the United States,
representing all segments of the population, including
emerging demographics, live in manufactured homes;
Whereas because it is an important source of affordable
housing, manufactured housing is a critical part of the
solution to the ongoing crisis in the housing market in this
Nation;
Whereas the factory production process provides
manufactured housing with technological advantages, value,
and customization options for consumers seeking quality
housing and sustainable homeownership;
Whereas manufactured homes are built to a national standard
under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and
Safety Standards Act of 1974, which governs construction,
engineering, quality, safety, and systems performance;
Whereas that Act supports innovation, consumer safety,
efficiency, and quality while preserving the affordability
and customization of manufactured housing;
Whereas creating affordable homeownership opportunities
helps build communities and requires the cooperation of the
private and public sectors, including the Federal Government
and State and local governments;
Whereas the laws of the United States, such as the
Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, encourage
manufactured housing homeownership and should continue to do
so in the future;
Whereas June is designated as National Homeownership Month;
and
Whereas the third week of June is recognized as
Manufactured Housing Week: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
[[Page 12020]]
(1) recognizes the importance of manufactured housing in
providing decent, sustainable, and affordable housing;
(2) recognizes the importance of manufactured housing in
contributing to homeownership in the United States;
(3) recognizes the importance of homeownership, including
homeownership of manufactured homes, in building strong
communities and families; and
(4) recognizes and fully supports the goals and ideals of
Manufactured Housing Week and National Homeownership Month.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
General Leave
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Today, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 1010, a
resolution honoring the importance of manufactured housing to our
country.
As we celebrate homeownership during the month of June, we also honor
the third week of this month as Manufactured Housing Month, recognizing
that manufactured homes offer hardworking American families the option
to purchase quality homes at an affordable price.
This $8 billion a year industry provides jobs for people not only in
the Second District of Indiana, but throughout our country. More than
18 million people live in over 10.5 million homes. I have seen
firsthand in my district how these homes have continued a tradition of
quality and safe construction over the years. They present a high-
quality, affordable housing option for all families.
Mr. Speaker, manufactured housing has come a long way over the years,
and often people cannot tell the difference between a modular home and
a site-built home. Manufactured homes have a factory production process
which provides technological advantages, value, and customization
options for consumers seeking quality housing and sustainable
homeownership.
Additionally, manufactured homes are built to a national standard
under the HUD Code, which governs the construction, the engineering,
the quality, safety, and systems performance. The HUD Code supports
innovation, consumer safety, efficiency, and quality while preserving
manufactured housing's affordability and its customization.
We have all witnessed the ongoing turmoil in the housing market, and
I believe it is essential that we look to affordable manufactured
housing as a viable solution to this problem.
Creating affordable homeownership is one of the fundamental building
blocks of our society, and it plays a fundamental role in achieving the
American Dream. It helps to provide families with economic security and
build strong communities.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution today and pass House
Resolution 1010.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1010,
which recognizes the importance of manufactured housing in the United
States.
Manufactured housing plays an important role in meeting this
country's housing needs and is an important source of quality,
affordable housing, including both homeownership and rental housing. In
recent years, manufactured housing placements accounted for more than
one-quarter of all new housing starts.
Despite the country's overall drop in home prices, the need for
quality, affordable housing has never been greater. Because it is an
important source of affordable housing, manufactured housing should be
viewed as a critical part of the solution to the ongoing troubles in
our housing market.
Today's manufactured homes can deliver quality dwellings and at
prices ranging from 10 to 35 percent less per square foot than
conventional site-built homes. These savings allow more and more
Americans to own their own home or access affordable rental housing
units.
The manufactured housing industry has evolved in the last decade to
deliver a better quality, more affordable product. The affordability of
manufactured housing is mainly attributable to the efficiency of the
factory process. The controlled environment and assembly-line
techniques remove many of the problems of the site-built sector, such
as poor weather, theft, vandalism, and damage to building products and
materials stored onsite. Also, factory employees are trained,
scheduled, and managed by one employer as opposed to the system of
contracted labor on a site-built sector.
As a Congress, we must do all we can do encourage affordable rental
and homeownership opportunities for all Americans. Today's manufactured
housing industry helps build communities and supports innovation,
consumer safety, efficiency, and quality while preserving the
affordability and customization of its housing units.
The legislation before us recognizes and fully supports the goals and
ideals of Manufactured Housing Week, and I urge my colleagues to
support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may need to the
cochair of the Manufactured Housing Caucus, Mr. Etheridge of North
Carolina.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank my friend, Congressman Donnelly, for yielding
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Res. 1010, recognizing the
importance of manufactured housing in the United States.
Unfortunately, far too many homeowners are facing difficulties during
this current National Homeownership Month. Housing prices are dropping,
home sales are stagnating, and thousands of families are facing the
prospect of foreclosure.
Manufactured housing can provide a sustainable and affordable housing
alternative. Instead of being trapped in exotic mortgages with high
interest rates, many Americans can choose cost-effective manufactured
housing. This sector of the housing market has also experienced an
evolution in the types and quality of homes that they build, offering a
wide array of designs that can fit the needs of more families.
In addition, Congress has passed legislation that provides tax
credits for the builders of these homes to meet energy efficiency
standards. These Energy Star labeled homes are more energy efficient
and can provide savings in the face of rising energy costs.
Manufactured housing can be a critical component in achieving two of
HUD's most important priorities, providing increased affordable
housing, and reducing dependencies on subsidized housing.
In addition, as a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I also
recognize the importance that manufactured housing can play in the wake
of a natural disaster. Manufactured housing can provide a quick, safe,
and efficient way to house these victims and provide families with
shelters as they put their lives back together.
Owning a home is a large part of the American Dream. I support this
resolution as well as the goals and ideals of Manufactured Housing
Week. I urge my colleagues to vote for the passage of H.R. 1010.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield such time as he may
consume to my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. I thank the gentlelady.
I rise in support of H. Res. 1010. As a cosponsor of my neighbor and
colleague Mr. Donnelly's resolution, I appreciate his leadership.
I very much appreciate Chairman Frank's backing this and Congressman
Capito, and others, because this is an important resolution to
recognize the importance of manufactured housing, particularly in the
third week of June as the Manufactured Housing Week.
[[Page 12021]]
As you've already heard, manufactured housing is a largely
underappreciated segment of our Nation's housing industry, even though
it uniquely provides both high-quality and affordable housing for
millions of Americans.
Companies in my district are numerous across northern--and
particularly north central--Indiana--the center of the recreational
vehicles industry, as well as manufactured housing. Fairmont in
Nappanee, Four Seasons in Middlebury, Patriot in Elkhart, as well as
Liberty in Goshen. Forest River has the Hart Homes. We have Coachman.
Fleetwood has a huge facility just south of Fort Wayne in Decatur,
Schulte Homes. And I could go on with a list. Up to 4,000 jobs in the
Third Congressional District in Indiana are related to manufactured
housing directly.
Most Americans do not understand how far this housing industry has
developed, and the industry suffers from many unfair stereotypes. No
longer is manufactured housing the domain of so-called trailer parks on
the outskirts of town. In fact, many Americans, even in the typical
leafy subdivisions, share a fence with a manufactured home and they
don't even know it. For example, this one from Liberty Homes shows the
island kitchen. You see them with vaulted ceilings, four- and five-
bedroom homes only for 20, 30, $40,000 less than a site-built home.
{time} 1600
For example, a beautiful two-story deluxe 2,000-square-foot
multisectional home in my district can sell for just over $100,000, as
I said, 10 to 35 percent less than a site-built home. They also gain in
energy efficiency. The quality of manufactured homes was shown by the
fact that on the gulf coast, among those that best withstood the high
winds of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were manufactured homes. Indeed,
in some neighborhoods, manufactured homes were the only ones left
standing after the storms blew through.
Given manufactured housing's dual strength in both superior price and
quality, we need to recognize and salute this industry. It is a
frustrating time in housing as we look at the those who took advantage
in the financing end of people's ability to repay or overvalued the
homes. But we need to make sure that low- and middle-income people who
are striving for better housing can still have access to affordable
housing, and manufactured housing is a critical part of that.
We have also seen much alarm in nonscientific facts relating to
formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is in the wood. It is not in any particular
kind of housing. It's on this House floor. It's in these seats. It's in
the Speaker's podium. The question is the size and scale of the unit
because formaldehyde is a repellant and an adhesive. And we need to
have scientific facts. The fact is that all homes contain wood. It has
nothing to do with any particular category. And many thousands of
people can have their jobs endangered because of nonscientific
political bashing of particular categories. Manufactured housing, in
fact, has the same characteristics in this regard as traditional site-
built housing.
We also need to make sure that as we look at down payment
requirements, and how we deal with very difficult subjects as we go
into the housing market, that we understand that manufactured homes, in
fact, have the same appreciation as site-built homes. It is just often
because they are more affordable, the individuals may not have the same
income mix. And we need to figure out a way to make sure that people
have access to good quality housing, and that is the American Dream.
I thank the thousands of workers in my district, Mr. Donnelly's
district and across this entire Nation who are providing affordable
housing so people can live the American Dream.
Mr. DONNELLY. I want to thank my good friend, Mr. Souder, from the
district right next to me. We work together on so many issues. I also
thank Mrs. Capito.
I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
Mr. FEENEY. I thank the gentlelady. I thank my good friend, Mr.
Donnelly, and Chairman Frank.
Manufactured housing, as has been said, plays a vital role in meeting
the needs of families to get affordable, attractive and safe housing
throughout our country. There are some 18 million Americans that live
in manufactured housing in America. And as the gentleman from Indiana
just said, the quality and the attractions just get better every day.
It is an important source of quality affordable housing, and it helps
new entry-level buyers as well as retirees trying to downsize on both
ends of the housing spectrum, whether getting in for the first time or
they're living perhaps in the last home that they will own.
It is a responsible means of homeownership that can play a major role
in the solution to America's affordable housing problem. The average
price of today's manufactured housing hovers somewhere around $48,000,
and in a challenging mortgage market where fewer and fewer people have
access to credit, this is one way to solve the problem that many
homeowners have.
There are lots of homeowners today throughout America that are losing
their homes in foreclosure. And yet because of the affordable nature of
manufactured housing, they have not seen a dramatic rise in most places
as we have in some communities in the rate of foreclosure throughout
the country. Manufactured housing is an important component of the
solution for affordability and access to the American Dream for every
American.
June is designated as the National Home Ownership Month. One of the
great choices Americans have is for quality manufactured housing.
Again, I thank the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of
the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1010.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
EDWARD WILLIAM BROOKE III CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL ACT
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill (S. 682) to award a congressional gold medal
to Edward William Brooke III in recognition of his unprecedented and
enduring service to our Nation.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 682
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 ``Edward William Brooke III
Congressional Gold Medal Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Edward William Brooke III was the first African
American elected by popular vote to the United States Senate
and served with distinction for 2 terms from January 3, 1967,
to January 3, 1979.
(2) In 1960, Senator Brooke began his public career when
Governor John Volpe appointed him chairman of the Boston
Finance Commission, where the young lawyer established an
outstanding record of confronting and eliminating graft and
corruption and proposed groundbreaking legislation for
consumer protection and against housing discrimination and
air pollution.
(3) At a time when few African Americans held State or
Federal office, Senator Brooke became an exceptional pioneer,
beginning in 1962, when he made national and State history by
being elected Attorney General of Massachusetts, the first
African American in the Nation to serve as a State Attorney
General, the second highest office in the State, and the only
Republican to win statewide in
[[Page 12022]]
the election that year, at a time when there were fewer than
1,000 African American officials in our nation.
(4) He won office as a Republican in a state that was
strongly Democratic.
(5) As Massachusetts Attorney General, Senator Brooke
became known for his fearless and honest execution of the
laws of his State and for his vigorous prosecution of
organized crime.
(6) The pioneering accomplishments of Edward William Brooke
III in public service were achieved although he was raised in
Washington, DC at a time when the Nation's capital was a city
where schools, public accommodations, and other institutions
were segregated, and when the District of Columbia did not
have its own self-governing institutions or elected
officials.
(7) Senator Brooke graduated from Paul Laurence Dunbar High
School and went on to graduate from Howard University in
1941.
(8) Senator Brooke's enduring advocacy for self-government
and congressional voting rights for the citizens of
Washington, DC has roots in his life and personal experience
as a native Washingtonian.
(9) Senator Brooke served for 5 years in the United States
Army in the segregated 366th Infantry Regiment during World
War II in the European theater of operations, attaining the
rank of captain and receiving a Bronze Star Medal for
``heroic or meritorious achievement or service'' and the
Distinguished Service Award.
(10) After the war, Senator Brooke attended Boston
University School of Law, where he served as editor of the
school's Law Review, graduating with an LL.B. in 1948 and an
LL.M. in 1949, and made Massachusetts his home.
(11) During his career in Congress, Senator Brooke was a
leader on some of the most critical issues of his time,
including the war in Vietnam, the struggle for civil rights,
the shameful system of apartheid in South Africa, the Cold
War, and United States' relations with the People's Republic
of China.
(12) President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Senator Brooke
to the President's Commission on Civil Disorders in 1967,
where his work on discrimination in housing would serve as
the basis for the 1968 Civil Rights Act.
(13) Senator Brooke continued to champion open housing when
he left the Senate and became the head of the National Low-
Income Housing Coalition.
(14) Senator Brooke has been recognized with many high
honors, among them the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004,
an honor that recognizes ``an especially meritorious
contribution to the security or national interests of the
United States, world peace, cultural or other significant
public or private endeavors''; the Grand Cross of the Order
of Merit from the Government of Italy; a State courthouse
dedicated in his honor by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
making him the first African American to have a State
courthouse named in his honor; the NAACP Spingarn Medal; and
the Charles Evans Hughes award from the National Conference
of Christians and Jews.
(15) Senator Brooke's biography, Bridging The Divide: My
Life, was published in 2006, and he is the author of The
Challenge of Change: Crisis in Our Two-Party System,
published in 1966.
(16) Senator Brooke became a racial pioneer, but race was
never at the center of his political campaigns.
(17) He demonstrated to all that with commitment,
determination, and strength of character, even the barriers
once thought insurmountable can be overcome.
(18) He has devoted his life to the service of others, and
made enormous contributions to our society today.
(19) The life and accomplishments of Senator Brooke is
inspiring proof, as he says, that ``people can be elected on
the basis of their qualifications and not their race''.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.
(a) Presentation Authorized.--The Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate
shall make appropriate arrangements for the presentation, on
behalf of the Congress, of a gold medal of appropriate design
to Edward William Brooke III in recognition of his
unprecedented and enduring service to our Nation.
(b) Design and Striking.--For purposes of the presentation
referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall strike a gold medal with suitable emblems, devices, and
inscriptions, to be determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 4. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medal struck pursuant to section 3 under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, at a price
sufficient to cover the cost thereof, including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and
the cost of the gold medal.
SEC. 5. STATUS OF MEDALS.
(a) National Medals.--The medals struck pursuant to this
Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title
31, United States Code.
(b) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5134 of
title 31, United States Code, all medals struck under this
Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 6. AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS; PROCEEDS OF SALE.
(a) Authority To Use Fund Amounts.--There is authorized to
be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund, such amounts as may be necessary to pay for the costs
of the medals struck pursuant to this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals authorized under section 4 shall be
deposited into the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule the, gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) each will control 20 minutes
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this bill was sponsored in
the Senate by our very cherished colleague, Senator Kennedy, who served
with former Senator Brooke for many years. It has been carried in the
House with great vigor and care by our colleague from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) and I yield her such time as she may consume.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the dean of the
Massachusetts delegation, not only for his assistance but for his
generosity in yielding to me first on this bill that I sponsored along
with him and the entire Massachusetts delegation.
I have to begin by thanking the many, many Republicans and Democrats
who are part of the two-thirds that are necessary to award the
Congressional Gold Medal. As you are aware, it is a pretty arduous
process. In this case, it was not because of the underlying substance
of the bill, but because when Members sign on to a bill they obviously
have to know something about it. And you have to go from Member to
Member.
I am pleased to say that many, indeed most, remembered Senator
Brooke, who is alive, and I would say alive and well, if you could talk
with him. He has had some illness. I will speak of it in a moment. Of
course, it was necessary to remind others of Senator Edward Brooke who
became the first African American elected to the United States Senate
in 1967 presciently ahead of his time. He was the first popularly
elected Black Senator.
I thank Members because I never encountered a Member who didn't see
Senator Brooke as a historic figure worthy of the highest award the
Congress can give, the Congressional Gold Medal.
Senator Edward Kennedy, of whom the gentleman from Massachusetts
spoke, quickly gathered his two-thirds. Our thoughts and prayers are
with him. The thoughts and prayers of the American people have been
with him since his illness was discovered. He quickly gathered his two-
thirds and passed this bill in the Senate. His colleagues understood
Senator Brooke's accomplishments in that ``club,'' after all. He was
able to get not only his colleagues to sign on quickly but to get the
bipartisan leadership. The majority leader, Mr. Reid, the assistant
leader, Mr. Durbin were cosponsors. The minority leader, Mr. McConnell,
was a cosponsor. Senators Ted Stevens, John Warner and John Kerry were
cosponsors. That gives you the flavor of the degree of respect former
Senator Brooke enjoys.
Now, I must say for the Record that Senator Brooke is a man who is
known for his modesty. He never expected the Congressional Gold Medal.
When I approached him to tell him I thought he deserved it, he warned
me away from this effort. But he should have expected it. President
Bush, 4 years ago, awarded Senator Brooke the Nation's highest medal,
the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award. But after all, Senator Brooke
was a Member of the United States Congress.
We noted last week the first African American was nominated for the
presidency by a major party. The country deserves the self-
congratulations it took for the distance it has come and that Senator
Obama's nomination signaled.
We must remember, however, that Senator Brooke was elected to the
Senate from the State of Massachusetts as
[[Page 12023]]
a Republican. In 1967 our country was just starting down the road we
are traveling and towards the landmark we saw last week. After all, the
1964 Civil Rights Act had just been passed. The 1965 Voting Rights Act
had just been passed. We are talking 1967, when Senator Brooks was
first elected.
1967 was the beginning of the urban disturbances known as ``the
riots,'' which swept the country even before Martin Luther King's
assassination, and even before Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination.
There was an openly hostile climate to issues affecting race. And
racial attitudes were often retrograde.
Mr. Speaker, I began this effort and began to think about Senator
Brooke during the struggle for the D.C. Voting Rights Act because the
analogies to our struggle and to his seem to me inescapable. Senator
Brooke is a native Washingtonian. He spent his entire life in this
city. He never left the city until he went to the Armed Forces of the
United States of America. The Senator grew up in this city when there
was no example of democracy, much less a public official to emulate.
There was no vote for President when he grew up in the District of
Columbia. There was no self-government at all. The city was run by
three commissioners from the Congress of the United States. It had been
kept a segregated city by the Congress of the United States. So the
medal for Senator has a double symbolic quality for those of us who
live in the District of Columbia.
What is most amazing about Senator Brooke is he seemed undaunted by
any of the so-called barriers he encountered. The city was as
segregated as any southern city in the United States. He went to public
schools that will be familiar to D.C. residents--Shaw Junior High
School and Dunbar High School were still segregated when I was
graduating. He went to Howard University for his college education and
then stayed right here to go to Howard Law School. How could Senator
Brooke have thought of himself as a Senator?
He probably, at the time he was at Dunbar and at Howard, did not
think about the fact that he would be the first African American
attorney general in the United States and the first African American
popularly elected to the Senate. He could hardly have thought as a
Republican who attained these offices in a heavily Democratic State
then and now--that that would be his fate. But he had no fate. He
obviously had only his own sense of aspiration of who he was.
During his time in the Senate from 1967 to 1979, Senator Brooke was a
strong advocate for the rights of D.C. residents who had nobody, had
got home rule only during his time, strong advocate for home rule, got
a delegate during his term, pressed hard for that. And he has been a
major advocate for the pending D.C. Voting Rights Act, which again I
thank this House for passing in 2007. He made calls to Senators urging
passage. And during his book tour last year he spoke of the importance
of passage of the D.C. Voting Rights Act. His book tour concerned the
publication of his autobiography, ``Bridging The Divide: My Life.''
{time} 1615
Senator Brooke has breast cancer. Speaking of obstacles, he has
regarded his recovery from this disease as an important obligation to
educate men about the disease. He obviously has had some of the
illnesses associated with being 88 years old, but I must say his robust
mind leads me to believe that he will attend the ceremony in the
Capitol Rotunda if we award him this medal. It is an amazing
accomplishment that with all these strikes against him, he didn't even
seem to notice.
So 208 years since the framers of our Constitution expected Congress
to grant DC voting rights once it became the capital under its
jurisdiction, in this very year when we expect in fact to get that
right, I ask this House to do what it has already done for voting
rights and to award the Congressional Gold Medal to our native son. We
are close to voting rights. It was filibustered, but we believe we can
break that now.
I want to leave you with the Senator's own words when we told him
that we were seeking the medal for him. He wrote this letter, which I
ask to be entered into the Record, to his Republican colleagues, and he
wrote a similar letter to his Democratic colleagues or former
colleagues here, and I am quoting the Senator: ``As much as I would
appreciate such a high honor from my peers, I would place even greater
priority on a full House vote for the American citizens who live in my
hometown. The right for citizens of the city where I was born and
raised was not achieved when I was a Member of Congress. Witnessing the
District of Columbia obtain the right to be represented in the House
with votes cast by Republicans would mean more to me than any honor
that I could achieve as an individual.''
I said he was modest. He means it. I think he means that sentiment. I
ask that Senator Brooke be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal.
March 21, 2007.
Dear Democratic Members: I have written to Republican
Members of the House as a life-long Republican and a native
Washingtonian, who was privileged to serve as the first
African American elected by popular vote to the U.S. Senate
(Massachusetts from 1967-1979). I am writing to Democrats as
well to thank you for your long support of voting rights and
home rule for my hometown, and to ask you to cast your vote
for H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights
Act of 2007. I grew up in the District when it was as
segregated as other Southern cities, including the city's
public schools, and I was educated at Howard University. We
had no local or federal rights, even to govern ourselves or
to vote for President, and no one to represent our concerns
in the Congress. A Democratic Congress changed all of that
when Democrats and a Republican president granted the
citizens of the nation's capital home rule and a delegate to
the House. Now you have another historic opportunity to grant
these tax-paying citizens the full representation in the
``People's House'' that they deserve.
At 87 years of age, I have had rare privileges and honors
as an American citizen that few Americans, particularly
residents of the District have never enjoyed. At a recent
press conference at the Capitol held by senators to celebrate
my recently published autobiography, I learned that members
of my congressional delegation and others were seeking for me
the highest congressional honor, the Congressional Gold
Medal. I could not help but be overwhelmed, but I had to say
that as much as I would appreciate such a high honor from my
peers, I would place even greater priority on a full House
seat for the citizens of my hometown.
I was elected as the nation's first Black attorney general
and then as the first African American elected by popular
vote to the United States Senate when Black Americans running
for state wide office seemed the stuff of fantasy. However, I
had to leave my hometown to become a Member of Congress or be
represented at all. Nothing would mean more to me,
particularly at this stage in my life, than witnessing
Democrats and Republicans voting together to afford voting
rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
I believe that Voting Rights Reauthorization in 2006 and
the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2007 are equivalent in
their historic purposes and deep meaning. Both bills are the
same in extending long-denied congressional voting rights,
and in the District's case, to an African American city as
well. I lived in the District until I joined the Army and was
proud to serve as a combat infantry officer in [captain
during] WWII. The experience of living in a segregated city
and of serving in our segregated Armed forces helps explain
why the pending D.C. House Voting Rights Act is so important
to me personally.
I have been heartened by the strong support of the
Democratic leadership and committee chairs and members who
are swiftly bringing this bill to the floor early in the
session. The bill has passed twice by overwhelming majorities
in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and this
year by a two-to-one vote by the Judiciary Committee. I ask
that you join the large majorities in those committees and
vote for H.R. 1433.
I am grateful for your work and attention to voting rights
for all Americans.
Sincerely yours,
Edward W. Brooke,
U.S. Senator, Retired.
____
March 21, 2007.
Dear Fellow Republican: As a proud life-long Republican, an
African American, and a native Washingtonian, I was not
destined to become a United States Senator when I was elected
in 1966. Yet, I served with some of you as a senator from
Massachusetts (1967-1979). It is the Republican Party that
gave me the opportunity not only to run, but also to serve
statewide in offices that even now are still rare for African
Americans to achieve. The Republican Party allowed me not
only to represent others. The Republican Party allowed me to
be represented in the
[[Page 12024]]
Congress of the United States. I am asking you to do the same
for the tax paying citizens of my home town and to vote for
passage of the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of
2007.
Last year, I was especially proud to watch my party lead
the passage of the reauthorization of the historic 1965
Voting Rights Act and to see a member of my party,
Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, initiate a similar bill
for the District of Columbia. Now you have before you another
historic voting rights bill. At 87 years of age, I have had
rare privileges and honors as an American, including the
nation's highest honor generously given to me two years ago
by President George Bush. At a recent press conference at the
Capitol held by senators to celebrate my recently published
autobiography, I learned that members of my congressional
delegation and others were seeking for me the highest
congressional honor, the Congressional Gold Medal. I could
not help but be overwhelmed, but I had to say that as much as
I would appreciate such a high honor from my peers, I would
place even greater priority on a full House seat for the
American citizens who live in my home town. This right for
citizens of the city where I was born and raised was not
achieved when I was a member of Congress. Witnessing the
District of Columbia obtain the right to be represented in
the House with votes cast by many Republicans would mean more
to me than any honor I could achieve as an individual.
I will always be grateful to the Republican party that
pressed and strongly supported my candidacies, as the
nation's first Black attorney general and then as the first
African American elected by popular vote to the United States
Senate. Republicans were first in their willingness to break
ancient barriers, in the 1960's, when Black Americans running
for statewide office seemed the stuff of fantasy. I was able
to run and win because the Republican Party never wavered
because of my race in a state where only two percent of the
residents were Black. I hope you will not hesitate now in
granting my hometown a vote in the House of Representatives
for the first time in the two centuries of the city's
existence as our nation's capital.
The Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King
Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006
and the DC House Voting Rights Act of 2007 are equivalent in
their purposes and their deep meaning. Both bills are the
same in extending long-denied congressional voting rights,
and in the District's case, to a majority Black city as well.
I grew up in the District when it was as segregated as other
Southern cities, including the city's public schools, and was
educated at Howard University. We had no local or federal
rights, even to govern ourselves or to vote for President,
and no one to represent our concerns in the Congress. I did
not live elsewhere until I joined the Army and was proud to
serve as a combat infantry officer during WWII. The
experience of living in a segregated city and of serving in
our segregated Armed forces perhaps helps explain why my
party's work on the Voting Rights Act reauthorization last
year and on the pending D.C. House Voting Rights Act has been
so important to me personally. The irony, of course, is that
I had to leave my hometown to get representation in Congress
and to become a Member. Nothing would mean more to me,
particularly at this stage in my life, than witnessing
Republicans and Democrats voting together to afford voting
rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
H.R. 1433 has been passed twice by overwhelming majorities
by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee and once by
a two-to-one vote by the Judiciary Committee. I ask that you
join those Republicans and Democrats in voting for H.R. 1433
on the House floor.
I am deeply grateful to you for your work and attention to
voting rights for all Americans.
Sincerely yours,
Edward W. Brooke,
U.S. Senator, Retired.
Senator Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts delegation, Congressional
Black Caucus Chair Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, and I are proud to introduce
the Edward William Brooke III Congressional Gold Medal Act. Senator
Edward Brooke has been much honored as an outstanding two-term senator
(1967-1979) who is still remembered for his courage and independence on
the difficult issues of his time--from the Vietnam War to his leading
work in the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. President Bush
awarded Senator Brooke the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004. At
87, his autobiography, Bridging the Divide: My Life tells the Senator's
remarkable story. That story began here in the District of Columbia,
where Senator Brooke was born and raised, and graduated from Dunbar
High School and Howard University. Senator Brooke rose to the rank of
captain in the segregated 366th Infantry Regiment in the U.S. Army, and
won a Bronze Star Medal and the Distinguished Service Award. His
autobiography reads like a personal and political adventure of a man
born in the segregated capital, a city with no local elected officials
or Members of Congress, who went on to become the first African
American official elected statewide, when he won election as Attorney
General, the second highest office in the state, and the only
Republican to win statewide election that year. In 1966, Senator Brooke
became the first African American elected by popular vote to the Senate
of the United States. ``Trailblazer'' does not aptly describe the
courage it took for an African American to run, much less win state-
wide office as a Republican in a predominately Democratic state, where
2 percent of the population was African American.
I take special pride and pleasure in introducing this bill in the
House, along with the Massachusetts delegation and the chair of the
Congressional Black Caucus. My Massachusetts colleagues justifiably
claim Senator Brooke as a son of Massachusetts. We in the District
concede that Massachusetts voters also deserve credit in refusing to
allow racial barriers, that still remain formidable in most States,
overwhelm Senator Brooke's qualifications for high office. However, I
hope that Massachusetts citizens will forgive the residents of the
Senator's hometown if we insist that Edward William Brooke III be
counted the adopted son of Massachusetts. Senator Brooke's family, the
District of Columbia Public Schools, Howard University, and the proud
African American community both sheltered and prepared him for his
remarkable life and service to the people of Massachusetts and the
Nation.
We are especially grateful for the Senator's devotion to H.R. 328,
the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of
2007. Senator Brooke has worked devotedly for passage of the pending
legislation. While in the Senate, he never forgot that his hometown had
no Senator and needed him, too. Speaking on the Senate floor for
passage of the Voting Rights Amendment in 1978, Senator Brooke made it
clear, as he does today, that this matter also was personal for him. He
said, in part, ``[M]y enthusiastic endorsement of House Joint
Resolution 554 is based primarily on fundamental concepts of liberty
and justice, but my support and interest are also intensely personal,
for my roots are in Washington, DC. I was born and raised here. I
attended and graduated from Shaw Junior High School, Dunbar High
School, and Howard University. For as long as I can remember, I have
fought, along with family and friends and colleagues, to attain the
goal of providing for the citizens of the District of Columbia the same
rights and privileges that other citizens throughout the Nation have
enjoyed.'' Because the Congressional Gold Medal is the highest honor
that Congress can bestow, it is necessary that at least 290
Representatives and 67 Senators sign on as cosponsors. I urge every
Member of the House and Senate to become cosponsors before the end of
Black History Month on February 28th.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, rarely, and rightly it is rare, do we honor
one of our own with the highest civilian honor we can bestow, the
Congressional Gold Medal. But rules are made to be broken, and just as
Ed Brooke broke an unwritten rule and became the first African American
popularly elected to the Senate since Reconstruction, we should break
another and honor his courage and achievements.
Just as it may be hard for college students of today to imagine
segregated bathrooms and drinking fountains, it is hard for all of us
to imagine a Congress without African Americans and others of color. So
it is especially important to think back to the historic day when this
humble man took the oath of office in the Senate 41 years ago on
January 3, 1967. The America of that time, as my colleague has noted,
was not far past the struggles that led to the passage of the Civil
Rights Act, which this Chamber voted a couple of months ago to honor
with a commemorative coin.
Mr. Speaker, many of us know the general outline of Ed Brooke's life:
a soldier in the Second World War, a lawyer whose 1966 book ``The
Challenge of Change'' focused on African Americans in the United States
and on politics. I doubt that many Members know though that he was
actually a native of the District of Columbia, as the gentlewoman
noted.
Born here October 26, 1919, he was a graduate of both Harvard and
Boston University and followed in his father's footsteps as a lawyer
before being elected Massachusetts Attorney General and then on to the
United States Senate, where he served two terms.
Mr. Speaker, this bill was sponsored by our colleague in the Senate,
Senator
[[Page 12025]]
Ted Kennedy, also of Massachusetts, with 67 cosponsors, and he assured
its passage before his unfortunate illness. We hope for him and his
family the very best. Our prayers are with them. Here in the House a
companion bill, H.R. 1000, was sponsored by our colleague Ms. Eleanor
Holmes Norton, and she has collected 290 cosponsors.
Mr. Speaker, this bill honors a man, Senator Ed Brooke, but it also
honors an idea and an achievement, that we are all equal, and that
election to the United States Senate is open to any American who can
prove to the voters that his or her ideas and character are appropriate
and best represent their State, regardless of race, creed or religion.
We should take this opportunity to celebrate that notion.
I urge immediate passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. How much time remains, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 8 minutes left.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself 4 minutes.
I consider it a great honor to be able to stand on the floor of this
House and as the Chair of the committee bring out the bill that would
honor Ed Brooke. As a citizen of Massachusetts in 1972 and again in
1978, and as a fairly partisan Democrat, I was proud publicly to
endorse him for reelection both times to the Senate.
The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia made the point he was
the first African American elected attorney general and then to the
Senate only shortly after this country officially said segregation was
morally and legally wrong. 1954 was the Brown v. Board of Education
decision, not made final until 1955 in its decree. Seven years later Ed
Brooke is elected attorney general. And as we look back now, it is
probably difficult for some people to understand what an important
accomplishment that was. But he is not a man who should be honored
simply for having broken those barriers, because having gotten the
opportunity, he used it.
The committee I chair has jurisdiction over housing. As I work in the
housing area, I find myself frequently trying to preserve some of the
pioneering efforts on behalf of affordable housing that Ed Brooke
created. I was very proud about a month or so ago when he called to say
that he liked what we were doing.
I was just reminded, Mr. Speaker, when I was up in our State of
Massachusetts over the weekend, that it was in 1978, in his last year
in the Senate, that Ed Brooke began the policy of saying that when
housing had been built with Federal help with a certain restriction
that set it aside for lower income people and those restrictions
expire, it shouldn't be simply sold to the highest bidder, but that
public policy ought to make some efforts to preserve it for people who
were in need of housing. We are still fighting that fight today.
We have something known as the Brooke amendment, one of the greatest
acts of compassion ever to pass this body. It said originally that the
poorest of the poor who get housing through various public programs
shouldn't be expected to pay more than 25 percent of their income for
housing, precisely because they have so little. That was changed,
regrettably, in the eighties. I voted against it, but it was changed to
30 percent. But it is still there. It is still the Brooke amendment. It
is still a major barrier to a degradation in the quality of life of
lower income people, because there are those who would make them pay 40
and 50 and 60 percent of their income, depriving them and their
children of the necessities of life. So it is with great pride that we
fight and have fought to continue the Brooke amendment.
Senator Brooke was a leader in a number of areas. Yes, he broke the
barrier of racism and became the first African American to win
statewide office in Massachusetts and then to come to the Senate at a
time when racism was even more virulent than it is today. We have made
strides in diminishing it.
But, as I said, he didn't just do that. He was a leader in a number
of areas, and particularly in the housing area. I don't believe anybody
who has ever served in the Congress of the United States has a record
that exceeds his.
So I am delighted to join under the leadership of our colleague
Senator Kennedy and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) in voting for this medal, the second medal, the third medal
that Brooke will have gotten, because he got the Presidential Medal of
Freedom and he earned the Bronze Medal in World War II, fighting in a
segregated outfit, putting patriotism ahead of the indignities to which
he submitted in the fight against that terrible tyranny.
This is a medal well earned by a man who exemplified the commitment
to the public welfare that we could well remember today.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that because of the energy of a number of
people, we are going to be awarding this gold medal to a man who so
richly deserves it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, so I will
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield my remaining time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my good friend, the chairman of our
Financial Services Committee, for the words that he said about Ed
Brooke. He would be one to know, another great leader in the area of
opening up housing for all. And I thank my good friend from the
District of Columbia.
Ed Brooke, as Ms. Norton has made clear, grew up in D.C., graduated
from Dunbar, Harvard University, and then, of course, went on to be the
editor of the Law Review at Boston University and got a Bronze Medal
for his service in the military.
But I got to know Ed Brooke from a different perspective. In fact,
Terry Lierman, who is now the chief of staff to our majority leader,
and I were on the Appropriations staff when Ed Brooke was the ranking
Republican. And what he did is incalculable in terms of school busing,
in terms of women's reproductive rights, in the area of opening up
federally-subsidized housing particularly, but housing throughout the
Nation to all.
Ed Brooke was a temple of justice. His intellect was unparalleled.
But what he exuded was a certain class, a dignity that just transcended
partisanship. He was able to work with some of the, frankly, most
narrow-minded Members of the Senate to get them to take votes that were
the right thing to do. And he took very little credit for it. That is
why this is so appropriate, to give him credit now, because he made a
profound difference in the course our country took 30 years ago.
He would sit there in his calm, measured tone. He would explain why
it is right to open up all of society and all of our economy to
everyone who was willing to work hard and obey the law.
Ed Brooke was a model that all of us should look to for leadership.
He was an extraordinary person. This is an extraordinary action we are
taking today, but it is for someone who fully deserves it.
Again, I thank my colleagues here, and I thank the Congress for
making this happen today.
I will yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Frank.
Mrs. CAPITO. I continue to reserve.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I am about to yield back.
Ed Brooke, in addition to being a superb United States Senator who
fought very hard and very effectively for economic fairness and
obviously against racial prejudice, but he also was the chief law
enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for 4 years.
Just to give people a flavor of that, I will mention one
accomplishment. It was under his attorney generalship that the Boston
Strangler was prosecuted and imprisoned. So people who may not
otherwise be able to relate should know. And if you saw him in the
movie, I think he was played by Raymond St. Jacques, but if you go see
again the movie of the Boston Strangler, you will see a part of that
book. We are here to talk about a number of other parts, including a
superb legislative record on behalf of social fairness.
[[Page 12026]]
I am prepared to yield back if the gentlewoman is.
Mrs. CAPITO. Yes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for S.
682, the ``Edward William Brooke III Congressional Gold Medal Act.'' It
is my privilege to honor this most distinguished gentleman who broke
barriers and tirelessly served his community and country with great
conviction.
Edward Brooke was the first African American elected to the United
States Senate by popular vote. I am proud that he accomplished this
feat in my home state of Massachusetts, which he represented from
January 1967 until January 1979. He has been Captain Brooke, Professor
Brooke, and Attorney General Brooke. He has fought for civil rights in
our country and against apartheid in South Africa. For his many
accomplishments, he has received numerous medals and awards, most
notably the Bronze Star and the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Senator Brooke paved the way--his election to the United States
Senate was a milestone in the march toward racial equality--and his
impact continues today, as we watch the first African American nominee
run for President, carrying Senator Brooke's legacy forward.
In a political world growing increasingly divisive and polarized,
Senator Brooke has always had the distinct ability to separate the
political from the personal. My husband, Paul, ran for the Senate
against Senator Brooke in 1978. Although the race was tightly
contested, Senator Brooke was always respectful, always warm, and Paul,
in turn, greatly admired him.
It is appropriate that we express our gratitude with this
legislation. Senator Brooke, in his life and through his service, broke
barriers and created new opportunities for so many, and in so doing,
moved our country further down the path towards the America that we all
hope will someday be a reality.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
First I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to
submit their comments and material on this matter.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 682.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE 100 YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ST. MARY'S
COOPERATIVE CREDIT ASSOCIATION
Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 1145) recognizing the 100 year anniversary of the
establishment of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, the ``Bank
of the People,'' and the birth of the American credit union.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1145
Whereas America's first credit union was established in
1908, in Manchester, New Hampshire, in order to afford hard-
working American textile workers access to credit and
savings;
Whereas the St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association,
later to be named the ``Bank of the People'', would lay the
foundation for the creation of over 8,500 credit unions in
America today, which serve over 90,000,000 members;
Whereas on June 26, 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
signed into law the Federal Credit Union Act, thus enabling
credit unions to be organized throughout the United States
under the charters approved by the Federal Government;
Whereas St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association and other
credit unions created as a result of the passage of the
Federal Credit Union Act played an instrumental role in
helping hard-working Americans recover after the Great
Depression;
Whereas credit unions have consistently carried on the
traditions set by St. Mary's and exemplified the American
values of thrift, self-help, and volunteers, carving out a
special place for themselves among the Nation's financial
institutions;
Whereas America's Credit Union Museum, located on the site
of America's first credit union, maintains a mission of
``educating present and future generations on the benefits of
cooperative self-help efforts to promote thrift and sensible
use of credit'' and preserves the history and tradition of
America's credit unions;
Whereas credit unions operate with the credo, ``Not for
profit, not for charity-but for service'' and have
consistently reflected this philosophical tradition and the
cooperative spirit of ``people helping people'' that gave
birth to the Federal Credit Union Act; and
Whereas 2008 will mark the 100th anniversary of the
establishment of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association in
Manchester, New Hampshire, America's first credit union: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives recognizes the
100th anniversary of the founding of St. Mary's Cooperative
Credit Association, the ``Bank of the People'', and the birth
of the American credit union.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
{time} 1630
General Leave
Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Hampshire?
There was no objection.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself so much time as I may
consume.
House Resolution 1145 recognizes the 100-year anniversary of the
establishment of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, the Bank of
the People, and the birth of the American credit union.
I want to thank Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank for his
support in bringing this legislation to the House floor.
St. Mary's Bank Credit Union is the oldest credit union in the United
States. It was founded in 1908. Its mission was and continues to be to
help New Hampshire residents with a wide range of affordable products
and services, including checking accounts, personal loans, real estate
loans, business banking and savvy financial planning.
In 1917, the New Hampshire State legislature approved a bill changing
the name from St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association to La Caisse
Populaire, Ste-Marie, The People's Bank. In 1925, an amended charter
allowed the institution to be called either La Caisse Populaire, Ste-
Marie, or St. Mary's Bank.
There are 24 credit unions in the State of New Hampshire with 403,000
members statewide. That's almost one-third of New Hampshire's
population. New Hampshire credit unions alone have more than $3.7
billion in assets. Credit unions provide an avenue for families
struggling during the credit crunch in these tough financial times to
get critical services and low-interest loans. In these tough times we
must do everything we can to help working families drowning in debt,
and credit unions are important to easing the financial hardships on
New Hampshire's working families.
Today's resolution honors our Nation's first credit union from New
Hampshire, but the excellent work and important contributions to New
Hampshire of St. Mary's stand as a fine example of the work of credit
unions all across this Nation, which provide working families access to
financial services they must have to prosper.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the 100-year
anniversary of the birth of the American credit union, the important
role that credit unions have come to play in this country, and I urge
support of H. Res. 1145.
Today more than 90 million Americans are members of a credit union.
These millions of Americans are the beneficiaries of an experiment that
began a century ago with the establishment of St. Mary's Cooperative
Credit Association. From these humble beginnings in Manchester, New
Hampshire, more than 8,000 credit unions have sprouted up that provide
financial services to credit union members all across this Nation.
[[Page 12027]]
I would like to recognize credit unions for the important role they
play in many distressed urban and rural areas. Many constituents have
told me that they would not have been able to afford their own homes,
start new business or even attend college without the help of their
credit unions. I am also impressed by credit unions' commitment to
financial literacy, which has helped credit union members become better
educated consumers of financial services.
For these reasons, I support H. Res. 1145, celebrating the 100th
anniversary of the American credit union.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HODES. I thank Mrs. Capito for her support of this bill, and I
also thank my colleague, Ms. Shea-Porter, for introducing the
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield as much time as she may consume to
the distinguished Congresswoman from New Hampshire, Carol Shea-Porter.
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague
for his support on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise today to recognize the 100th
anniversary of our Nation's first credit union. In 1908, St. Mary's
Cooperative Credit Association, later to be renamed the Bank of the
People, was established in Manchester, New Hampshire. Manchester had
textile mills then. The mill workers' resources were pooled to create
credit and savings opportunities for workers, many of whom were
immigrants.
In 1934, 26 years after the establishment of St. Mary's, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Federal Credit Union Act into law,
allowing for the organization of credit unions under charters approved
by the Federal Government. Today there are over 8,500 credit unions
nationwide, and I think it's fair to say that St. Mary's truly laid the
foundation for the success of credit unions nationwide.
This credit union model has withstood the test of time. From the
Great Depression to modern-day global-
ization, the emphasis on local communities that is embodied in the
concept of the credit union has earned these institutions a special
place among our Nation's financial institutions.
St. Mary's even stayed open during the bank holiday of 1933,
providing reassurance and help to its worried community. This
commitment to community and access to credit and savings services is
easy to see.
For example, in 1908, the cost of becoming a member of the St. Mary's
Cooperative Credit Association was $5. Today, after 100 years, the cost
of signing up for anyone who lives or works in New Hampshire is $5.
That is pretty remarkable.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to honor St. Mary's 100th anniversary,
and I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H. Res. 1145.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 1145,
which recognizes the 100-year anniversary of the establishment of St.
Mary's Cooperative Credit Association. Created to service the financial
needs of textile workers, St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association, or
the People's Bank, as it was appropriately renamed, was the Nation's
first credit union.
Since the creation of St. Mary's Cooperative Credit Association,
credit unions have grown to become a major part of the American
financial services system. Today there are over 8,500 credit unions in
the United States, serving over 90 million members.
During my years of service on the House Committee on Financial
Services, I have had the opportunity to get to know many credit union
employees. I have always been impressed with their commitment to
serving their credit union members and their communities. In many ways,
credit unions exemplify the best of the free market system. Since
credit unions are formed specifically to serve their members, credit
unions put the interests of their depositors first.
I hope that Congress will follow-up today's legislation by soon
considering H.R. 5519, the Credit Union Regulatory Relief Act of 2008,
which repeals Federal regulations that hinder credit unions from
improving their services.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res.
1145, and I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution and saluting all credit unions for their vital role in
strengthening America's financial services industry.
Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1145.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL INFANTRY MUSEUM AND SOLDIER CENTER COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3229) to require the Secretary of the
Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the legacy of the United
States Army Infantry and the establishment of the National Infantry
Museum and Soldier Center, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3229
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 ``National Infantry Museum and
Soldier Center Commemorative Coin Act''.
SEC. 2. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.
(a) $1 Silver Coins.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(hereafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue not more than 350,000 $1 coins in
commemoration of the legacy of the United State Army Infantry
and the establishment of the National Infantry Museum and
Soldier Center, each of which shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of sections 5134 and
5136 of title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under
this Act shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 3. DESIGN OF COINS.
(a) Design Requirements.--
(1) In general.--The design of the coins minted under this
Act shall be emblematic of the courage, pride, sacrifice,
sense of duty, and history of the United States Infantry.
(2) Designation and inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act, there shall be--
(A) a designation of the value of the coin;
(B) an inscription of the year ``2012''; and
(C) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(b) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary, after consultation with the
National Infantry Foundation and the Commission of Fine Arts;
and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee.
SEC. 4. ISSUANCE OF COINS.
(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Mint Facility.--
(1) In general.--Only 1 facility of the United States Mint
may be used to strike any particular quality of the coins
minted under this Act.
(2) Use of the united states mint at west point, new
york.--It is the sense of the Congress that the coins minted
under this Act should be struck at the United States Mint at
West Point, New York, to the greatest extent possible.
(c) Period for Issuance.--The Secretary may issue coins
under this Act only during the calendar year beginning on
January 1, 2012.
SEC. 5. SALE OF COINS.
(a) Sale Price.--The coins issued under this Act shall be
sold by the Secretary at a price equal to the sum of--
(1) the face value of the coins;
(2) the surcharge provided in section 6 with respect to
such coins; and
(3) the cost of designing and issuing the coins (including
labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead expenses,
marketing, and shipping).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders
for the coins minted under this Act before the issuance of
such coins.
[[Page 12028]]
(2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders
under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
SEC. 6. SURCHARGES.
(a) In General.--All sales of coins issued under this Act
shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
(b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31,
United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary
from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be paid to
the National Infantry Foundation for the purpose of
establishing an endowment to support the maintenance of the
National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center following its
completion.
(c) Audits.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall have the right to examine such books, records,
documents, and other data of the National Infantry Foundation
as may be related to the expenditures of amounts paid under
subsection (b).
(d) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), no
surcharge may be included with respect to the issuance under
this Act of any coin during a calendar year if, as of the
time of such issuance, the issuance of such coin would result
in the number of commemorative coin programs issued during
such year to exceed the annual 2 commemorative coin program
issuance limitation under section 5112(m)(1) of title 31,
United States Code (as in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act). The Secretary of the Treasury may issue
guidance to carry out this subsection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia
(Mrs. Capito) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to advise and
extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous
material thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
The oldest and largest branch of the U.S. Army, the U.S. Army
infantry, was established on June 14, 1775, when the Continental
Congress ordered the formation of 10 companies of riflemen. The
riflemen comprised the first armed force of a new Nation, a Nation
destined to become the greatest democracy the world has ever known.
Since that time, the infantry has gone where other forces could not go
and accomplished missions others could not attempt.
The story of the Queen of Battle has been written by individual
infantrymen who have done their duty with pride, courage and honor.
Their suffering and sacrifices won our freedom, preserved that freedom
for over two centuries and will guarantee it in the future. Some were
called heroes, some were not, but they were all members of a band of
brothers who fought for their country in the cause of freedom.
For more than two centuries the United States infantry has fought
alongside other armed forces to protect their freedom. Their missions
have sent them around the world and literally brought them face-to-face
with the enemy.
From the Siege of Boston of 1775 to San Juan Hill, to the Battle of
New Orleans, to the Argonne Forest, where Sergeant York distinguished
himself, to the beaches of Normandy, they hunted the enemy in the Shau
Valley, parachuted into Panama, and currently subdue our enemies on
cold mountainside and hot desert sands in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
When policymakers finished talking, when debate has ceased, when
negotiations have failed and orders are given, it becomes the mission
of the United States infantry to execute our national policy.
Their courage, pride and sense of beauty to country and each other
stood tall above any fear they faced. But the battle for our freedom
has been costly. As many as 80 percent of all the servicemen and women
who have died serving their country were part of the infantry.
To honor the infantry's decorated history, the National Infantry
Foundation, in coordination with the United States Army, have broken
ground on a new world-class museum honoring them. Located on a 200-acre
site of Fort Benning, Georgia, the National Infantry Museum will serve
as a tribute to the infantry's legacy of valor and sacrifice. This
museum will honor these soldiers for their selfless service to our
country, while also preserving for all time the artifacts so poignantly
telling their stories.
It will tell the story of our ground soldiers, from the colonial
period to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Lessons of the past will be retold
to help lead us in the future.
Our children must learn and know that there are values and beliefs
worth living for and worth dying for, that the freedom and liberty we
enjoy today has come at a high price, and that the American values of
patriotism, duty, courage and leadership are the hallmarks of the
infantry and must be preserved.
With 290 cosponsors, this bipartisan legislation honors the legacy of
the United States infantry with the minting of the infantry coin. Money
raised from the sale of the coins will go towards maintaining the
National Infantry Museum.
I applaud the efforts of the National Infantry Foundation, its rich
history deserves to be kept alive for all who follow. These heroes are
perhaps too humble to tell their own story, so we will have to do it
for them.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for authoring this legislation,
and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3229, the
National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center Commemorative Coin Act
sponsored by our colleague from Georgia, Representative Westmoreland,
and urge its immediate passage.
This legislation, as we have heard, authorizes the minting and sale
of up to 350,000 silver $1 coins in the year 2012, with surcharges on
the sale of the coin going to fund work on the National Infantry Museum
and Soldier Center being built in Patriot Park at Fort Benning near
Columbus, Georgia.
The new National Infantry Museum will honor the legacy of the United
States infantry on a 200-acre site that links Columbus, Georgia, with
Fort Benning, the home of the infantry. The museum's galleries will
trace infantry history from colonial times to the present and be
designed to attract and educate all segments of the population with
interactive learning, opportunities, high-tech classrooms, theatres and
dramatic venues for sacred ceremonies.
An active education program will make the venue a must-see attraction
for school groups and students of all ages. The focus of the
educational effort will be to teach history, as the history of the
United States Army Infantry parallels the history and growth of our
country. Additional instruction will focus on leadership skills and the
Army values of loyalty, duty, selfless service, respect, honor,
integrity and personal courage. Research done by an internationally
known museum planning firm estimates annual visitation of up to
400,000, which will make it one of Georgia's top tourist attractions.
In addition to the museum, there will be a 7-acre parade field for
infantry and basic training graduations and change-of-command
ceremonies. A Walk of Honor flanked by gardens and memorials will lead
visitors to the museum and a recreated World War II-era Company Street,
featuring the headquarters and sleeping quarters used by General George
S. Patton in 1941 will take visitors back to the scenes of our
country's largest wartime buildup. The facility will include a 3-D IMAX
theater restaurant and museum store.
Visitors to this museum that is scheduled to open in just over a year
will meet the infantryman face-to-face and join him on his journey.
They will come to understand why an infantryman does what he does, why
he puts himself in harm's way in defense of an idea. Surcharges on the
sale of these coins will raise funds for a long-term endowment to
ensure the maintenance of this important facility.
The infantryman is historic, and it is a heroic idea to build this
museum to
[[Page 12029]]
the infantry. I urge passage of this legislation, commend my colleague
for offering it, and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) such time as he may consume.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland) and 288 other bipartisan cosponsors in support of H.R.
3229, the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center Commemorative
Coin Act.
In the history of organized military operations, the infantry
occupies a unique place of honor. Life as an infantryman is a constant
barrage of exercise and training often in brutal situations that
simulate combat zone operations.
Due to the very nature of an infantry position of work with arms,
bombs, and physical stress, casualties occur in both war and peacetime
situations. The infantry is the main combatant in war. It fights the
battle at the root and cuts off the enemy at the knee. It is at once
the most fearless, courageous, noble, intelligent and selfless branch
of the military.
{time} 1645
From crossing the ice-filled Delaware River to walking the streets of
Baghdad, it is the infantryman who is willing to pay the ultimate price
to protect American freedoms.
I am proud to represent ``The Home of the Infantry,'' Fort Benning,
here in Congress, and I am humbled and honored to be a cosponsor of
this legislation. A great nation is measured in part by how it
remembers those who defended, preserved, and contributed to its
heritage. The United States Army Infantry has contributed greatly over
the years at a tremendous human cost, and it is incumbent upon those of
us serving in Congress to pay tribute to their sacrifices.
The minting of the infantry coin will not cost the taxpayers any
money and the sale of the coins will completely cover the cost of the
minting. The mint will actually receive a small profit from every coin
that is sold. Money raised from the sale of the coins will help make
sure that the National Infantry Museum located at Fort Benning will
always be the keeper of the history, artifacts, and memories of our
brave Army Infantry.
The National Infantry Museum sits on a 200-acre site that will serve
as a tribute to the infantry's legacy of valor and sacrifice, and will
also serve as a functional area for basic training graduations and
other special and community events. The museum will honor infantry
soldiers for their selfless service to our country while also
preserving for all time the history that so poignantly tells their
stories.
I want to thank Major General (Retired) Jerry White and Colonel
(Retired) Greg Camp for their years of hard work and dedication in
making the National Infantry Museum a reality. In addition, I would
like to thank Congressman Lynn Westmoreland as well as Edward Jones
from Congressman Westmoreland's office, and Jonathan Halpern and Ed
Larkin from my staff for their steadfast efforts on this project.
I urge my colleagues to please join me in supporting this legislation
and in supporting our proud Army Infantry.
I urge the adoption of this legislation.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. It is my honor to be here today, and I do want to
thank my colleague, Sanford Bishop, for his hard work and helping me
get the required number of signatures to get this commemorative coin,
and anybody who has ever done that knows what a challenge it is to get
the number of signatures required. I want to thank him and his staff;
and also Edward Jones from my staff for all of their hard work and
dedication that we have had over the months trying to get the requisite
number of signatures.
For more than 200 years the United States Infantry has sought to
protect our freedom. H.R. 3229 will honor the legacy of the United
States Infantry with the minting of a commemorative coin. Eighty
percent, as has been mentioned before here today, of American
casualties are young men and women who have lost their life in battle
were members of the infantry.
The Infantry Museum Foundation, in coordination with the United
States Army, have already broken ground on this new National Infantry
Museum. It has been my honor to visit it, and with General White walk
through the street, the World War II street, to see the buildings that
will afford our young men and women an opportunity to see what Army
life was like during World War II. It also has the parade field which
is now under construction, and will be a place where many ceremonies in
the future will be held. Also, this building is going to be a green
building. It is high tech. There is geothermal heating and cooling in
the building. And as Mrs. Capito mentioned, a professional museum
planner has worked very hard on this.
I would like to tell one story General White told me. In doing some
of the exhibits, they have one exhibit where paratroopers are flying on
a plane to jump out, and the architect of this one ride told General
White, ``I don't know how we are doing on this. A lot of the people who
are testing it are getting motion sickness, almost to a point of losing
their lunch.''
And General White said, ``Then you're almost there.''
This museum is going to be a place where people can go in and feel
the sense of battle that these young men and women feel.
And as you know, Fort Benning is the place where about 80 percent of
our young men and women go that are going into harm's way in Iraq and
Afghanistan and other places that we may send them, and it will give a
great opportunity for them to go and see some of the legacy that has
come before them and also give their families a chance to visit this
great facility.
So it is with great honor that I introduce this bill, and I want to
thank all of the cosponsors of this bill. It was amazing the number of
people that I would go up to and ask to sign this legislation that
said, you know, I spent 3 months of my life at Fort Benning going
through my military boot camp; and so I hope that when this thing is
open next year, that these Members that have gone through there and
experienced that type of military life will come down and join us in a
grand opening.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to please support this
resolution.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3229, and would like to commend my good friend from Georgia,
Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, for offering it.
The bill before us today will allow coins to be issued in support of
the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center during the year 2012.
The coins will be emblematic of the courage, pride, sacrifice, sense of
duty, and history of the infantry, and the proceeds received from
issuance of the coin will be used to establish an endowment to support
the maintenance of the National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee who
previously had Ft. Benning--the Home of the Infantry--in my district, I
have long supported the efforts of the National Infantry Foundation to
establish the new National Infantry Museum and wholeheartedly support
the issuance of this coin in support of the museum.
The National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center at Patriot Park will
honor the 233-year heritage of the Army's largest branch, the infantry.
This museum will be instrumental in helping to educate future
generations about the vital role of the infantry in the history of our
Nation. Furthermore, this building will honor the men and women who
serve in and support the infantry, and preserve the infantry's legacy
of service.
This legacy of service is indeed quite remarkable, Mr. Speaker. The
first successful and systematic training of the U.S. infantry can be
tracked back to Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, in 1778. It was not until
1826 that a formal post for infantry training was established, and over
the course of history, the Infantry School has existed at the Jefferson
Barracks in Missouri, Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas, in Monterrey,
California, at Ft. Sill in Oklahoma,
[[Page 12030]]
and at Fort Benning--the ``Home of the Infantry''--since 1918. Through
the years the Infantry School at Ft. Benning has gradually emerged as
the most influential infantry center in the modern world. The school
has either trained in its officer courses or honed in its command
structure some of the Nation's most prominent military figures,
including five-star generals Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower, and
George Marshall, as well as George Patton and Colin Powell. And, Mr.
Speaker, over the course of American history, nearly 80 percent of all
servicemen and women who have died serving our Nation were part of the
infantry.
This museum has one mission, Mr. Speaker: to honor the infantryman
and his more than two centuries of proud service to our great Nation.
This coin will support this mission.
I ask all of my colleagues to join me in support of this bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
correspondence:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2008.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Financial Services Committee, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Frank: I am writing regarding H.R. 3229, the
``National Infantry Museum and Soldier Center Commemorative
Coin Act.''
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains
jurisdiction over bills that raise revenue. H.R. 3229
contains a provision that establishes a surcharge for the
sale of commemorative coins that are minted under the bill,
and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
However, as part of our ongoing understanding regarding
commemorative coin bills and in order to expedite this bill
for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action.
This is being done with the understanding that it does not in
any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of Conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this bill or similar legislation in the future.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 3229, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the record.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2008.
Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter
regarding H.R. 3229, the ``National Infantry Museum and
Soldier Center Commemorative Coin Act,'' which was introduced
in the House and referred to the Committee on Financial
Services on July 30, 2007. It is my understanding that this
bill will be scheduled for Floor consideration shortly.
I wish to confirm our mutual understanding on this bill. As
you know, section 7 of the bill establishes a surcharge for
the sale of commemorative coins that are minted under the
bill. I acknowledge your Committee's jurisdictional interest
in such surcharges as revenue matters. However, I appreciate
your willingness to forego Committee action on H.R. 3229 in
order to allow the bill to come to the Floor expeditiously. I
agree that your decision to forego further action on this
bill will not prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar
legislation. I would support your request for conferees on
those provisions within your jurisdiction should this bill be
the subject of a House-Senate conference.
I will include this exchange of letters in the
Congressional Record when this bill is considered by the
House. Thank you again for your assistance.
Barney Frank,
Chairman.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I urge passage
of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I encourage passage of
the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Lincoln Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3229, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
MOTHER'S DAY CENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 2268) to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the establishment
of Mother's Day, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2268
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 ``Mother's Day Centennial
Commemorative Coin Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress hereby finds as follows:
(1) Anna Jarvis, who is considered to be the founder of the
modern Mother's Day, was born in Webster, West Virginia on
May 1, 1864.
(2) A resident of Grafton, West Virginia, Anna Jarvis
dedicated much of her adult life to honoring her mother, Anna
Reeves Jarvis, who passed on May 9, 1905.
(3) In 1908, the Andrews Methodist Episcopal Church of
Grafton, West Virginia, officially proclaimed the third
anniversary of Anna Reeves Jarvis' death to be Mother's Day.
(4) In 1910, West Virginia Governor, William Glasscock,
issued the first Mother's Day Proclamation encouraging all
West Virginians to attend church and wear white carnations.
(5) On May 8, 1914, the Sixty-Third Congress approved H. J.
Res. 263 designating the second Sunday in May to be observed
as Mother's Day and encouraging all Americans to display the
American flag at their homes as a public expression of the
love and reverence for the mothers of our Nation.
(6) On May 9, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson issued a
Presidential Proclamation directing government officials to
display the American flag on all government buildings and
inviting the American people to display the flag at their
homes on the second Sunday of May as a public expression of
the love and reverence for the mothers of our nation.
SEC. 3. COIN SPECIFICATIONS.
(a) Denominations.--The Secretary of the Treasury
(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall mint and issue not more than 400,000 $1 coins each of
which shall--
(1) weigh 26.73 grams;
(2) have a diameter of 1.500 inches; and
(3) contain 90 percent silver and 10 percent copper.
(b) Legal Tender.--The coins minted under this Act shall be
legal tender, as provided in section 5103 of title 31, United
States Code.
(c) Numismatic Items.--For purposes of section 5136 of
title 31, United States Code, all coins minted under this Act
shall be considered to be numismatic items.
SEC. 4. DESIGN OF COINS.
(a) Design Requirements.--The design of the coins minted
under this Act shall be emblematic of the 100th anniversary
of President Wilson's proclamation designating the second
Sunday in May as Mother's Day.
(b) Designation and Inscriptions.--On each coin minted
under this Act there shall be--
(1) a designation of the value of the coin;
(2) an inscription of the year ``2014''; and
(3) inscriptions of the words ``Liberty'', ``In God We
Trust'', ``United States of America'', and ``E Pluribus
Unum''.
(c) Selection.--The design for the coins minted under this
Act shall be--
(1) selected by the Secretary after consultation with the
Commission of Fine Arts; and
(2) reviewed by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee
established under section 5135 of title 31, United States
Code.
SEC. 5. ISSUANCE OF COINS.
(a) Quality of Coins.--Coins minted under this Act shall be
issued in uncirculated and proof qualities.
(b) Commencement of Issuance.--The Secretary may issue
coins minted under this Act beginning January 1, 2014, except
that the Secretary may initiate sales of such coins, without
issuance, before such date.
(c) Termination of Minting Authority.--No coins shall be
minted under this Act after December 31, 2014.
SEC. 6. SALE OF COINS.
(a) Sale Price.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the coins issued under this Act shall be sold by the
Secretary at a price equal to the sum of the face value of
the coins, the surcharge required under section 7(a) for the
coins, and the cost of designing and issuing such coins
(including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, overhead
expenses, and marketing).
(b) Bulk Sales.--The Secretary shall make bulk sales of the
coins issued under this Act at a reasonable discount.
(c) Prepaid Orders at a Discount.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall accept prepaid orders
for the coins minted
[[Page 12031]]
under this Act before the issuance of such coins.
(2) Discount.--Sale prices with respect to prepaid orders
under paragraph (1) shall be at a reasonable discount.
SEC. 7. SURCHARGES.
(a) Surcharge Required.--All sales shall include a
surcharge of $10 per coin.
(b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f) of title 31,
United States Code, all surcharges which are received by the
Secretary from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall
be promptly paid by the Secretary as follows:
(1) \1/2\ to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure for the
purpose of furthering research funded by the organization.
(2) \1/2\ to the National Osteoporosis Foundation for the
purpose of furthering research funded by the Foundation.
(c) Audits.--The Susan G. Komen for the Cure and the
National Osteoporosis Foundation shall be subject to the
audit requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of title 31, United
States Code, with regard to the amounts received by the
respective organizations under subsection (b).
(d) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), no
surcharge may be included with respect to the issuance under
this Act of any coin during a calendar year if, as of the
time of such issuance, the issuance of such coin would result
in the number of commemorative coin programs issued during
such year to exceed the annual 2 commemorative coin program
issuance limitation under section 5112(m)(1) of title 31,
United States Code (as in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act). The Secretary of the Treasury may issue
guidance to carry out this subsection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
General Leave
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous
materials therein.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2268, a bill introduced by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) to create a commemorative
coin honoring the 100th anniversary of Mother's Day. The 297 bipartisan
cosponsors of this bill made clear that the Congress strongly supports
recognizing the importance of Mother's Day in this way, and I am
delighted to add my voice to this chorus.
Mother's Day was first proclaimed in 1908 by the Matthews Methodist
Episcopal Church of Grafton, West Virginia, in honor of one mother,
Anna Reeves Jarvis.
Congress designated the second Sunday in May to be observed as
Mother's Day, and it was recognized as a national day to honor all
mothers by President Woodrow Wilson on May 9, 1914.
The bill calls for a silver dollar to be minted in 2014 with a design
commemorating President Wilson's proclamation. The $10 surcharge
proceeds from their sale is to go to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, a
household word and organization in combating breast cancer, and to the
National Osteoporosis Foundation for research purposes.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill honoring Mother's Day and
our Nation's mothers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York
(Mrs. Maloney) for her support of this bill, and I am very excited it
is before the House today.
There is a very special bond that exists between mothers and their
children that words cannot describe. For the lucky ones among us, a
mother--our, someone else's, or a mother figure such as a grandmother--
has made all of the difference in our lives. The tender care, unending
support, and the unconditional love of a mother truly are life's
greatest blessing for a child.
Every year on the second Sunday in May this Nation honors its
mothers. We seek to acknowledge their tireless support and their
enduring love. My colleague has spoken about how this tradition began,
but I would like to go over it because it is a proud history of
tradition for our State of West Virginia.
In 1868, Anna Reeves Jarvis organized a committee in her home town of
Grafton, West Virginia, to sponsor a mother's friendship day. The
purpose was to reunite families that had been divided during the Civil
War. However, Anna Reeves Jarvis' dream of an annual memorial Mother's
Day commemorating each mother for the service she renders to humanity
had not gained wide-spread support during her lifetime.
However, her daughter, Anna M. Jarvis, took on her mother's cause. On
May 9, 1907, the second anniversary of her mother's death, Anna invited
friends to her home and outlined her plan to make her mother's dream of
a nationwide day in honor of mothers a reality.
Within a year, working with Andrews Methodist Episcopal Church,
progress was made and on Sunday, May 10, 1908, church services were
held in which mothers were honored. They were held in Grafton, West
Virginia, and in Philadelphia.
This initial celebration was only the beginning. Jarvis worked for
years to popularize her idea. She wrote letters to churches and
business leaders, to newspaper editors and to Members of Congress. She
was even able to bring the drive for a Mother's Day observance to the
attention of the President of the United States.
Her efforts were rewarded. In 1910, the governor of West Virginia,
William Glassock, issued a Mother's Day proclamation. By the next year,
Mother's Day services were held in all States of the Union. In 1914,
President Woodrow Wilson, responding to a joint resolution in Congress,
issued a proclamation setting aside the second Sunday every May for
``displaying the American flag as a public expression of our love and
reverence for the mothers of our country.''
Today, Mother's Day is celebrated throughout the world. In the United
States, the President and governors issue proclamations recognizing
mothers, churches perform services in honor of mothers everywhere, and
the hearts of all are filled with all of our love for our mothers.
This bill would authorize the minting of silver $1 coins in honor of
the women who have sacrificed so much for their children. It is a small
token of our love and admiration, but one that will hopefully express
the love we hold for our mothers. Surcharges of the sale of the coins,
as my colleague mentioned, will go to the Susan G. Komen Foundation and
the National Osteoporosis Foundation for research.
I chose both of these foundations because I have great admiration for
the work they do for men and women, but particularly for women as we
battle the difficult tragedies of breast cancer and the growing
difficulties associated with osteoporosis which over 80 percent of the
people it strikes are women.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution, but I would like to
take this opportunity to thank my mother. She has made a difference in
my life. I appreciate her unconditional love and support, her
willingness to help me when I fell, and to push me forward when I could
not find the strength myself.
I love you, Mom, and thanks.
With that, being from West Virginia, I would like to say, too, that
our sense of community and family is very strong. We are so very proud
of Anna Jarvis' vision, her idea and her dedication to celebrate her
own mother, and we are proud to be known as the birthplace of Mother's
Day.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, but would also like to recognize my own mother, as I am sure all
of us in this body appreciate our mothers. This is an important
resolution, and I am proud to be the Democratic sponsor with my good
friend from West Virginia, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2268, the Mother's Day Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. First, I
[[Page 12032]]
would like to thank Representative Capito for authoring this
legislation before us today.
H.R. 2268 would instruct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint and
issue $1 coins in recognition of the 100th anniversary of President
Wilson's proclamation designating the second Sunday in May as Mother's
Day.
As an original cosponsor of this bill, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank mothers across this nation for what they have
done, do, and will do to keep our families and our country, strong.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take the personal privilege of
recognizing my mother, Mrs. Helen Gingrey. Ninety years young, my
mother instilled in me the very values and work ethic that prepared me
to serve in these hallowed halls.
Her example testifies to the fact that we owe so very much to our
mothers, to our fathers, to all those who cleared the way and smoothed
the paths for us to succeed and realize our potential. We should honor
their work not just in word but in deed--by ensuring a smoother,
clearer path for the next generation--for our children and our
grandchildren.
And so, I call upon my colleagues to demonstrate their appreciation
for mothers everywhere by supporting this legislation.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following
correspondence:
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 22, 2008.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Chairman, Financial Services Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Frank: I am writing regarding H.R. 2268, the
``Mother's Day Centennial Commemorative Coin Act.''
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means maintains
jurisdiction over bills that raise revenue. H.R. 2268
contains a provision that establishes a surcharge for the
sale of commemorative coins that are minted under the bill,
and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
However, as part of our ongoing understanding regarding
commemorative coin bills and in order to expedite this bill
for Floor consideration, the Committee will forgo action.
This is being done with the understanding that it does not in
any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the
appointment of Conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives
on this bill or similar legislation in the future.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 2268, and would ask
that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be
included in the record.
Sincerely,
Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives,
Committee on Financial Services,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2008.
Hon. Charles B. Rangel,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in response to your letter
regarding H.R. 2268, the ``Mother's Day Centennial
Commemorative Coin Act,'' which was introduced in the House
and referred to the Committee on Financial Services on May
10, 2007. It is my understanding that this bill will be
scheduled for Floor consideration shortly.
I wish to confirm our mutual understanding on this bill. As
you know, section 7 of the bill establishes a surcharge for
the sale of commemorative coins that are minted under the
bill. I acknowledge your Committee's jurisdictional interest
in such surcharges as revenue matters. However, I appreciate
your willingness to forego committee action on H.R. 2268 in
order to allow the bill to come to the Floor expeditiously. I
agree that your decision to forego further action on this
bill will not prejudice the Committee on Ways and Means with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar
legislation. I would support your request for conferees on
those provisions within your jurisdiction should this bill be
the subject of a House-Senate conference.
I will include this exchange of letters in the
Congressional Record when this bill is considered by the
House. Thank you again for your assistance.
Barney Frank,
Chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2268, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
{time} 1700
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H. Res. 1063, by the yeas and nays;
H. Con. Res. 318, by the yeas and nays;
H. Con. Res. 336, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining votes in this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
MARKING THE 225TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TREATY OF PARIS OF 1783
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1063,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1063.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414,
nays 0, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 394]
YEAS--414
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
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
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
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
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
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
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)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
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
[[Page 12033]]
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
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
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
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)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Braley (IA)
Burgess
Ferguson
Gillibrand
Hinchey
Holt
Hulshof
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Payne
Pence
Pickering
Platts
Rush
Tancredo
Wamp
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
{time} 1724
Messrs. GOHMERT and DELAHUNT changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
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.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF SANITATION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H.
Con. Res. 318, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 318, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411,
nays 0, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 395]
YEAS--411
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
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
Bono Mack
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)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
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
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
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
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
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)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
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
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
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 (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
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)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Culberson
NOT VOTING--21
Baca
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Donnelly
Ellison
Ferguson
Foster
Gillibrand
Holt
Hulshof
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Payne
Pence
Pickering
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Tancredo
Wamp
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1731
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the concurrent resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
HONORING THE SACRIFICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY DISABLED AMERICAN
VETERANS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H.
Con. Res. 336, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by
[[Page 12034]]
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) that the House suspend
the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 336.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417,
nays 0, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 396]
YEAS--417
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
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
Bono Mack
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
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
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
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
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
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
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)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
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
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
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
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
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)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Baird
Braley (IA)
Cooper
Ferguson
Gillibrand
Holt
Hulshof
McCrery
Meek (FL)
Ortiz
Payne
Pence
Rush
Tancredo
Wamp
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1739
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of
Representatives:
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, U.S. House of
Representatives,
Washington, DC, June 5, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC
Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to Sec. 20702(b) of H.J. Res.
20, P.L. 110-5, I am notifying the House that I am
designating Ali Qureshi, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer
for Operations and Walter Edwards, Deputy CAO for Customer
Solutions to act in my stead in the event of my death,
resignation, separation from office or disability until a
Chief Administrative Officer is appointed pursuant to 2
U.S.C. Sec. 75a-1.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Beard.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6063, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a
privileged report (Rept. No. 110-707) on the resolution (H. Res. 1257)
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6063) to authorize the
programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for
other purposes, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to
be printed.
____________________
{time} 1745
ENERGY PRICES
(Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, this weekend, the national average of a
gallon of gasoline broke the $4 mark. This is an all-time high, and our
citizens deserve action from Congress.
The Democratic leadership needs to pull their heads out of the sand
and join us in developing a strong national energy policy. The
Republican plan proposed will develop and increase our domestic supply
of oil, which will drive down the cost of gasoline at the pump. In
Louisiana, we take great pride in our offshore drilling, and we drill
in an environmentally safe way. Everyone in Louisiana knows that the
best place to fish is right next to an oil rig in the Gulf.
I call on Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress to stop
locking relief at the pump and finally join us in passing legislation
that will remove the obstacles that limit our refining capacity,
explore alternative sources of energy, and increase the supply of
domestic oil and gas to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
These are all policies which will lower gas prices. This energy
crisis is real. The time for Congress to act is now.
[[Page 12035]]
____________________
WE'VE GOT TO WAKE UP AND DRILL
(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I was privileged enough to go with a
number of Congressmen two weeks ago to the Middle East and went to
Saudi Arabia. We had some great meetings over there. We met with the
Minister of Petroleum and many of the other people who are directly
involved with the oil situation, and here is their response to us as we
complained to them about the high price of gasoline. Now, keep in mind
America imports 60 percent of its oil. This is what these guys said to
us: ``You have the nerve and the audacity to come here, all the way to
Saudi Arabia, to complain about your oil prices when you won't even
drill yourself, when you won't even build refineries.''
President Bush was there a month earlier, and they increased the
capacity to 300 million barrels a day. And we can't even buy it because
we don't have the refineries. We've got to get our head out of the
sand.
China right now, with Cuba, is drilling 45 miles off the coast of
Florida. We've got to wake up and drill and use our own resources.
____________________
HONORING THE PEOPLE OF HUGO, MINNESOTA
(Mrs. BACHMANN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the people of
Hugo, Minnesota.
It was just several weeks ago that the people of Hugo encountered a
terrible tragedy; it occurred at 5 o'clock on a quiet Sunday afternoon.
A tornado touched down in Hugo, and within 30 seconds over 50 to 60
homes were completely flattened, between 150 and 200 homes were
uninhabitable. But the wonderful spirit, Madam Speaker, among the
people of Hugo, the fire department, the police department, the State
Patrol, almost instantaneously had a wonderful textbook outpouring of
rebuilding.
Within one week, the community of Hugo had so many volunteers they
had to turn them away. They completely removed all the debris from the
city within one week, and now they're on the road to rebuilding.
I congratulate Mayor Fran Miron. I congratulate City Administrator
Mike Ericsson. And I congratulate all the people of Hugo who have
exuded the spirit of Minnesota, the loving experience of loving a
neighbor. And that's what people in Hugo do best, they love each other.
So congratulations to the people of Hugo. You will rebuild. You will
be back. And I'm so honored to represent you here in this great House.
____________________
THE DRILL-NOTHING CONGRESS
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about the drill-
nothing Congress. I wish I had thought of that phrase, but it's the
headline in Investor's Business Daily, Monday, June 9.
The average price for regular gas at $4 a gallon over the weekend.
Gas prices have risen 75 percent since Nancy Pelosi took over. Where is
the energy independence Democrats promised 2 years ago? That's the
subheadline.
Now I am going to quote from the article. In November, 2006, House
Speaker-Elect Nancy Pelosi issued a press release touting the Democrats
``common-sense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' She
accused the oil companies of price gouging. The price of gasoline, when
the Democrats took control of Congress, was around $2.25 per gallon.
The average price of regular gas crept over the $4 per gallon barrier
over the weekend, as measured by AAA and the Oil Price Information
Service.
This represents a more than 75 percent increase in the retail price
of a gallon of gasoline on Pelosi's watch. Call it the Pelosi premium
we are all now paying.
Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record the rest of the June 9, 2008,
article of Investor's Business Daily.
A Gallup poll released in May showed that 57% of the
American people wanted the U.S. to drill in coastal and
wilderness areas. The percentage of Americans who bought
Pelosi's line about price gouging fell from 34% in May 2007
to 20% in May 2008. It could be a winning issue for the
Republicans and John McCain.
More than 15 billion barrels of oil have been sent down the
Alaskan pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, some 60 miles to the west
of ANWR, over the past three decades, much more than the six
months' supply expected in the beginning by those who
predicted a similar environmental disaster there.
The local caribou and other critters have thrived. Yet,
Pelosi and the Democrats want to keep ANWR's estimated 10.6
billion barrels of oil off the market and out of our gas
tanks.
Buried in a Department of Interior Appropriations bill
passed in December 2007 was an amendment proposed by Rep.
Mark Udall, D-Colo., passed by a 219-215 vote in June, that
prevented the establishment of regulations for leasing lands
to drill for oil shale.
The Western U.S. is estimated to have reserves of a
trillion barrels (yes, that's the real number) trapped in
porous shale rock, an amount three times the oil reserves of
Saudi Arabia. On May 15, 2008, the Senate Appropriations
Committee in a 15-14 party line vote rejected an amendment by
Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., to allow oil shale drilling and
overturn the Udall moratorium.
The U.S. Congress has voted consistently to keep 85% of
America's offshore oil and gas off-limits, while China and
Cuba drill 60 miles from Key West, Fla. The U.S. Minerals
Management Service says that the restricted areas contain 86
billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas.
There are 3,200 oil rigs off the coast of Louisiana. During
Katrina, not a single drop was spilled. More than 7 billion
barrels have been pumped from these wells over the past
quarter-century, yet only one thousandth of one percent has
been spilled.
A study by Louisiana's Sea Grant college shows that there's
50 times more marine life around oil platforms that act as
artificial reefs than in the surrounding mud bottoms. Some
85% of Louisiana fishing trips involve fishing around these
offshore rigs.
The Flower Garden coral reefs lie off the Louisiana-Texas
border. They are surrounded by oil platforms that have been
pumping for 50 years.
According to federal biologist G.P. Schmahl, ``The Flower
Gardens are much healthier, more pristine than anything in
the Florida Keys. It was a surprise to me. And I think it's a
surprise to most people.''
We would suggest that John McCain revisit his reservations
about ANWR and run against the drill-nothing Congress. Energy
development and the environment are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, we would suggest that the first joint town hall
meeting with Barack Obama proposed by McCain be held on one
of those offshore Louisiana rigs.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Berkley). The Chair will recognize
Members for Special Order speeches without prejudice to the resumption
of legislative business.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
RETURN SOVEREIGNTY 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. Madam Speaker, I have believed for a long time now that
the best way to bring peace to Iraq is to launch a diplomatic surge to
encourage regional and international partners to get involved in
addressing Iraq's problems.
The first step in this process would be to withdraw all of our troops
and military contracts, which would create a positive climate, a
climate that would allow diplomatic efforts to actually begin. But
today, the administration is taking our country in quite the opposite
direction. It is negotiating long-term security arrangements with the
Iraqi Government, arrangements that could actually keep us bogged
[[Page 12036]]
down in Iraq for decades and destroy Iraq's sovereignty.
It is hard to know exactly what the administration is demanding in
the negotiations because it has refused to share the information with
Congress. Reports, however, and whatever we can find out, indicates
that the administration is asking for unilateral authority over all
U.S. military operations in Iraq, the right to arrest and detain Iraqi
citizens, legal immunity for American military contractors, control
over Iraqi borders and air space, and perhaps permanent bases, making
Iraq a virtual American colony.
All this has brought a wave of protest from Iraqis of all political
and religious stripes. It seems that we have finally succeeded in
uniting the Iraqis against us. An Iraqi Government spokesman actually
has said, ``The Iraqi Government's vision differs from that of the
Americans, who think the agreements will give them almost totally a
free hand in Iraq, and that, as a military force, they must have
absolute powers.''
In addition, members of the Iraqi Parliament representing the
majority of parties in that body wrote a letter to the Congress which
was released just last week by my colleague on the Foreign Relations
Committee, Representative Delahunt, the chairman on the Subcommittee on
International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight. This letter
includes a demand for the withdrawal of American troops. It said, in
part, that ``the majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any
military security, economic, commercial, agricultural investment or
political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear
mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to
fully withdraw from Iraq in accordance with the declared timetable, and
without leaving any military bases, soldiers, or hired fighters.''
Madam Speaker, by moving for a permanent military presence in Iraq,
the administration is sending the wrong message to the Iraqi people.
The American people are also getting that message, along with the rest
of the world. It says to the Iraqi people that they will continue to
live under foreign military occupation with no end in sight. It tells
the American people that the occupation will continue to drain our
resources at a time when our citizens are facing dire economic problems
at home. And it proves to the world that the administration is
determined to tie the next President to the failed policies of the
past.
The best course for America is to begin the immediate, responsible
redeployment of our troops and military contractors out of Iraq, as
this House has mandated. But since the administration is clearly
unwilling to do that, the next best thing is for Congress to demand
full knowledge of the negotiations, with the right to approve any
agreements.
Madam Speaker, the United States must give full national sovereignty
back to Iraq, and we must stop acting like an arrogant occupying power.
After more than 5 years of bloody occupation, this is no time to talk
about staying in Iraq forever. Instead, it is time to give the Iraq
people back their independence. And it is time to bring our brave
troops home.
____________________
{time} 1800
MAGINOT LINE OF INDIFFERENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the United States has gone to war numerous
times to protect the sovereignty of nations. Sixty-four years ago on
June 6, thousands of GIs went ashore in France because its borders were
invaded by the Nazis. In fact, most of the European countries and north
Africa had their sovereign borders overrun by the Nazis.
In the Pacific, the United States fought the Japanese because they
had invaded the borders of our territories and the borders of China and
Indochina. Americans died. Over 400,000 died protecting all of those
borders during World War II.
After World War II, the United States defended the borders of Western
Europe nations against that ``evil empire'' of the Soviet Union and
Soviet Communism. In fact, we still have troops in Western Europe.
Sixty years later, we still defend those borders. And that is a long
time. Then there was the Korean War. In its aftermath with 50,000
Americans killed, we fulfilled our commitment to defend South Korea,
and we still have 30,000 troops on that border with North Korea, 50
years plus defending someone else's border. We defend the borders of
Iraq and part of the Balkans even to this day.
But Madam Speaker, I wonder why we don't have the same commitment to
America's borders? Doesn't that bother anyone? Having been to the
southern border of the United States numerous times and seeing the
``Maginot Line of Indifference,'' I am puzzled why we seem to ignore
the thousands of trespassers, or invaders, if I can use that term, that
come from all nations and cross our border without permission.
When Mexico invaded the United States at Brownsville, Texas, in 1846,
we went to war to defend the southern border. When the outlaw, now folk
hero, General Pancho Villa and his bandits came into the United States
from Mexico to commit crimes in New Mexico, the United States sent
General Blackjack Pershing to go after him, even if it meant going to
Mexico.
That was during a time when our sovereignty was important to the
Nation and to the Federal Government. But the invasion now is much
worse. Some estimates put the number of illegals in the United States
between 15 and 35 million people. Why don't we have the same moral
resolve we had in World War II and Korea to defend our borders from
this stealth invasion? It is the duty of government to protect the
citizens of this Nation and the States.
I will read from the Constitution, something we probably ought to do
more of in this Congress. Article IV section 4 of the United States
Constitution says, ``The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this union a Republican Form of Government and shall protect each of
them against invasion.'' Invasion means intrusion or encroachment. Why
doesn't the Government just simply follow the Constitution and prevent
invasion into the United States?
Now some Chamberlain appeasers want to just tell the illegals they
can stay. After all, we can use the cheap plantation labor, the
appeasers say. Never mind the crimes some of them commit, never mind
how they take some social services without paying for them, never mind
how some live off Americans and lawful immigrants. Never mind it is
illegal to be in the United States without permission.
So why, Madam Speaker, do we defend the borders of other nations but
not our own? The Feds say they are trying. But the proof, or the lack
of it, is in the results. The border with Mexico is violent. The border
is porous, and the border is being invaded. The most powerful nation in
the history of the world can stop the secret invasion if it first had
the moral resolve to do so, and second, the courage to do whatever is
necessary to stop the onslaught of invaders.
Maybe we should even use the National Guard or returning troops from
Iraq on our southern border. But doing so would take leadership that is
committed in word and deed to protecting the sovereignty of this
Nation.
The United States is worth it, Madam Speaker, even if the amnesty
crowd and Mexican President Calderon doesn't like it.
And that's just the way it is.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ROBERT J. DOLE VA MEDICAL
CENTER IN WICHITA, KANSAS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise this evening to
congratulate and to pay tribute to the Robert J. Dole Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Center in my home
[[Page 12037]]
State in Wichita, Kansas, for 75 years providing outstanding services
and care to our Nation's heroes, our veterans.
Caring for those who have borne the battle is our Nation's utmost
responsibility. And for 75 years, the Dole VA Hospital has helped our
Nation honor this commitment. Let us take time today to pay tribute to
the work of the Dole VA leadership staff and volunteers and the Kansas
veterans they serve each day. Veterans are the people I hold in highest
regard only to be exceeded by those individuals who serve those
veterans.
Under the skillful leadership of the VA Network 15 Director Dr. Peter
Almenoff and hospital director Tom Sanders, the Dole VA Hospital has
worked to fulfill its mission: ``To improve the health and wellbeing of
veterans we are honored to serve.'' In fact, the Dole VA has received
national acclaim in its service to veterans. On a recent rating of VA
hospitals for quality of veterans' care, the Dole VA hospital ranked
third in the Nation. Our country is fortunate to have these individuals
who made the commitment to serve these veterans. What we do in
Washington, D.C., pales in comparison to what these individuals do each
and every day for our veterans.
On November 16, 1933, the first patient, a veteran of the Spanish-
American War, was admitted to the hospital. At that time, there were
150 beds. By the end of 1933, all beds had been filled. In 2008 over
2,000 admissions were recorded at the hospital. The Center now provides
a full range of primary, acute and extended care services to veterans
from 59 counties in Kansas. Many of these counties make up the First
Congressional District that I represent. And despite covering more than
57,000 square miles, the First District is without a VA hospital of its
own. Veterans in central and western Kansas rely on the care and
services provided by the Dole VA. We are blessed to have such an
outstanding facility in Kansas available to those who have given so
much on our behalf.
Last month, I had the opportunity to participate in the 75th
anniversary jubilee in Wichita attended by the hospital's namesake,
former United States Senator Bob Dole, a member of the country's
greatest generation and an unending advocate for veterans. Also
attending the celebration was the Veterans Department Secretary James
Peake, Kansas Senators Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback, Kansas
Congressman Todd Tiahrt, and Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer.
We listened to Dole speak of his own military service and recovery
from wounds he received in World War II in a VA hospital, as well as
his leadership in building the World War II Memorial, as co-chair of
the President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors. With his legacy of service and sacrifice to our country and
its veterans, Senator Dole is an appropriate namesake and inspiration
for the hard work and dedication of the leadership, staff and
volunteers at the Dole VA.
Again, I wish to congratulate the Dole VA Medical Center for 75 years
of care to our country's veterans. On behalf of veterans in Kansas, I
thank them for their service.
____________________
A RED HERRING
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, the New York Times CBS spring poll has
reported that 68 percent of Americans favor putting restrictions on
what is called free trade to protect our domestic industries. That is
the highest level of concern since the poll began asking the question
in the 1980s, and a 12 percent rise just since 2000.
Only 14 percent of Americans surveyed last year by the Pew Global
Attitudes Project said increase in trade was very good for our country.
And the American people, by a healthy majority, view NAFTA and NAFTA-
like trade agreements as flawed and costing our people more job washout
every day. In other words, a majority of people in our country not only
believe something is wrong with current U.S. trade policy, enough of
them have now been hurt directly by unfair trade that they now know
personally what a bad trade deal can yield. When you are almost $1
trillion in trade deficit, something is fundamentally wrong.
So what does one of America's premier newspapers place on its
editorial page this week in response? Do they look inside the gaping
job loss and trade deficits our Nation is experiencing and attempt to
reshape the policy to again produce a better yield in jobs for our
people and Nation? No. They put their head in the sand. And they do so
in the form of an editorial that is nothing more than a red herring.
Actually, this looks like a herring to me. A red herring. You've heard
that old expression which means someone distracts attention from the
real issue. They state a half-truth and then wage a fierce argument
against that falsehood as if the falsehood were true. It is an old
trick.
The New York Times article written by Eduardo Porter, is a complete
red herring. He said that people who worry about job loss in America
related to trade want to stop trade. He said that those people are
isolationists. Nothing could be more untrue.
I say to Mr. Porter the vast majority of the American people want to
fix what is wrong with these trade deals. And there is plenty wrong. If
he fails to grasp that, he might, as the old expression goes, ``fail to
see the wall in front of his face and run right into it.'' Mr. Porter
alleges that the majority of Americans who favor putting restrictions
on free trade to protect domestic industries will push the new
President to be undiplomatic and unreasonable when it comes to what
Porter calls economic protectionism.
Mr. Porter, reciprocity is not protectionism. With nearly $1 trillion
net trade deficit sucking more and more jobs out of this country, he
should be championing balancing our trade agreement and creating jobs
here in America again. But he opines that other countries, like Canada,
Sweden and Germany, in which fewer people favor such measures, are
scared that a new trade model would bring about what he calls a trade
war. Yeah, you scare them, right? Try to scare the American people.
What Mr. Porter does not understand is that America's hostility is
not to international trade, but to trade agreements and deficits that
cause job outsourcing, job losses and cuts to middle-class benefits and
health coverage. Americans support trade that wins for them and that
brings prosperity to America again. They want trade that builds a
middle class here at home and abroad. They are tired of being jerked
around by the multinational companies that trade them for $1 an hour
worker in China who has no hope of a better life. They want that worker
to get a fair deal too. They support trade that creates jobs, America
used to do that before we fell into deficit, and exports American
products again to customers around the world. They broadly oppose the
failed NAFTA model that has sucked jobs and money away from America to
corrupt and closed markets that keep their boot on the necks of workers
around the world who have no rights. Porter claims trade hawks want to
disengage from the world. Wrong again. Nothing could be further from
the truth. Americans wants to engage. They want reciprocal trade,
balanced trade and free trade that builds a middle class, not shatters
it.
That is why a number of us introduced a bill he mentions offhand, the
trade act, H.R. 6180 which currently has over 50 sponsors and sets
guidelines for responsible trade that encourages free trade among free
people. Porter says that Europe and Germany don't share our point of
view and we should be more like them. I will agree with him on one
account. We should be more like them because they have trade balances,
not trade deficits. They are sitting pretty compared to ours. We have a
$711.6 trade deficit in 2007, and they, in fact, have surpluses. So Mr.
Porter ought to be fighting for a strong America. And that means free
trade among free people.
Indeed, the latest monthly trade figures from April show our nation
has just gone further in
[[Page 12038]]
the hole at $60.9 billion deficit. More red ink equals more lost jobs
and more workers falling out of the middle class. Yet Canada and Sweden
both managed surpluses of about $30 billion in U.S. dollars. Their
trade numbers are moving in the right direction. Germany commanded a
trade surplus of more than $185 billion. I ask Mr. Porter, why
shouldn't America move its accounts to balance and surplus? Why does he
favor more job washout? More loss of income for our people? More red
ink? Furthermore, workers in those countries need not worry about
losing their healthcare since the government provides assistance. Those
countries trade in order to make money, but our trade policies have
resulted in a hemorrhage of our resources.
The New York Times and Mr. Porter ought to be fighting for a strong
America--and that means a strong economy evidenced by balanced trade
accounts, not deficits. A strong America means keeping and creating
good jobs, with living wages and benefits like healthcare. And a strong
America means trade relationships that bring strength to our economy
and our trading partners', not a race to the bottom or human rights
violations.
America ought to be fighting for opening the closed markets of the
world, like Japan's and China's, not putting our heads in the sand
while our competitors levy non-tariff barriers against America's goods
and services. If we are not trading with a free country with a free
market and free people, we are not trading freely at all. We are paying
these countries to continue unfair economic and political practices at
the cost of our own prosperity and standard of living.
We ought to be fighting for America's middle class, not outsourcing
their jobs to China, India, and Mexico. We should not oppose free
trade; we should support free trade among free people.
[From the New York Times, June 7, 2008]
Europe Fears a Post-Bush Unilateralism, This Time on Trade
(By Eduardo Porter)
The Democrats' vocal hostility to trade is starting to
scare many of America's best friends. As Barack Obama and
Hillary Clinton have bashed China and a variety of free trade
agreements, allies who have been yearning for an end to
President Bush's in-your-face unilateralism are worried that
a Democratic president may be just as undiplomatic, and
unreasonable, when it comes to economic protectionism.
``It is very irresponsible, in my view, to pretend to
people that we can disengage from international trade,''
Peter Mandelstam, the European trade commissioner, warned in
a May interview with the BBC.
It would be a mistake to brush all this off as mere
campaign posturing. The United States remains as open to
trade as its European allies, and in some areas it has even
fewer restrictions. But the question is, for how long?
Despite economists' assurances about trade's many benefits,
American workers increasingly view globalization as a losing
battle against China's cheap labor and a very personal threat
to their wages and jobs. According to a poll this spring by
The New York Times and CBS News, 68 percent of Americans
favor putting restrictions on free trade to protect domestic
industries. That is the highest share since they began asking
the question in the 1980s, and 12 percentage points more than
in 2000.
Workers in other rich nations feel less threatened. Only 14
percent of Americans surveyed last year by the Pew Global
Attitudes Project said increasing trade was ``very good'' for
the country. That's less than half the share in Canada,
Germany or Sweden. Even among the French, who tend to see
capitalism as gauche and occasionally drive tractors into
their local McDonalds, 22 percent said more trade was very
good.
The issue isn't the amount of trade. European countries
actually trade much more than the United States. But their
citizens appear to be more comfortable with the idea because
their governments provide a stronger safety net to catch
workers undercut by foreign competition and redistribute the
gains from trade more equitably.
In the United States, public spending on social programs,
from unemployment insurance to health care, amounts to about
17 percent of the overall economy. This is about half the
level in Germany and less than almost every other rich
nation. America's meager social safety net and its winner-
take-all distribution of riches means workers have less to
gain from trade's benefits and more to lose from any
disruption.
Most economists agree that trade plays a small role in the
deteriorating fortunes of less educated American workers. But
as their wages have sagged, their pensions have shrunk and
their health insurance has disappeared, trade has become the
scapegoat. Politicians, especially but not solely from the
Democratic Party, have been eager to capitalize on those
anxieties.
Just this week, Democrats in the House and Senate proposed
a bill that would require the president to submit plans to
renegotiate all current trade agreements--before Congress
considered any pending agreements and before the president
negotiated any new ones. In April, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
decided to change the rules guiding approval of free trade
agreements to stall the approval of one with Colombia.
The United States has an enormous stake in maintaining an
open global economy. Trade means export markets for American
products, as well as cheap imports for American companies and
consumers. Foreign competition helps spur productivity, which
has driven the spectacular increase in American living
standards since World War II.
Before this country stumbles into a trade war, all
political leaders would benefit from a careful examination of
how other wealthy democracies have found ways to cushion
economic blows on the most vulnerable and make trade more
palatable to their workers.
More generous social policies are a far better choice than
protectionism.
____________________
THE PRICE OF GASOLINE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, if you went out to a gas
station this morning or tomorrow morning and you asked anybody pumping
gasoline what the number one issue is, they would tell you without a
doubt it is the price of gasoline because it is having an impact on
their food and on every other commodity that they deal with.
The American people want gasoline prices and energy prices to come
down. And the thing that really amazes me about my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker, is they won't listen to the
American people. Eighty percent of the American people, according to
recent polls say that if we have the resources here in America, we
should drill for them right here. Obviously, everybody is concerned
about the environment, but we can drill for oil in the ANWR and off the
continental shelf and use coal shale to create a tremendous amount of
gasoline and energy in this country without even relying on the foreign
sources. The problem is that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle will not listen to the American people.
Now I was watching Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes the other
night, and Mr. Hannity said he couldn't figure out why the Republicans
weren't talking about this and making this a big issue.
{time} 1815
And if he were here tonight, I would say, ``Sean, we are doing it. We
are screaming from the top of this Capitol that we ought to drill in
the ANWR, we ought to drill off the Continental Shelf. We have a 500
year supply of natural gas. But the Democrats on the other side will
not listen to the American people, and the price of gasoline goes up
and up and up and the price of energy goes up and up and up.''
I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want
to go to new forms of energy that are environmentally safe, and I think
everybody in this body wants that.
But while we are transitioning to the new technologies, we still have
to live. We still have to have heating oil. We still have to have
gasoline. We still have to have energy. And the way we can get it and
not depend on foreign resources is by drilling in the ANWR, drilling
off the Continental Shelf, using coal shale and using natural gas. But
the environmentalist lobby, and my colleagues will never admit to this
on the other side of the aisle, but the environmentalist lobby has them
by throat, and as a result they will not yield to the America people's
will that we drill here in this country to reduce the price of energy.
Now, I believe this will be an issue in the fall campaign. I know
everybody is talking about Obama and McCain and the presidential race.
But the people who are in this country are really concerned about
getting to and from work and paying their bills. I would just like to
say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, go to any gas
station tonight, go to any gas station tomorrow, and ask anybody
pumping gas this question: Do you think we ought to drill for our own
oil? Do you think we should depend less on foreign resources
[[Page 12039]]
like Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? And 80 percent of them will look you
right in the eye and say, you bet. I want the price of gasoline to go
down.
My Democrat colleagues, I want you to listen to them, because they
are going to get more and more angry with you because you will not
listen. We could bring the price of gasoline down immediately if we say
we are going to drill in ANWR, drill off the Continental Shelf, because
our competitors around the world are going to say, ``oh, my gosh, there
is going to be competition,'' and you will see the price of gasoline
and oil per barrel go down.
So, tonight, once again I will just say to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, please, please listen to the American people. They
want to drill in the ANWR. They want an environmentally safe way to
drill in the ANWR, and we have it. They want to drill off the
Continental Shelf. They want us to drill for our own oil and our own
natural resources, and they don't want to depend on Saudi Arabia,
Venezuela, Mexico or anyplace else. And we should listen to them. We
should listen to them.
So if Sean Hannity were here tonight, I would say, ``Sean, we are
listening to you. We have heard you. We are screaming from the top this
Capitol, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren't
listening right now.''
But if we keep this up and the American people listen, and I think
they will, they are going to hold my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle, the Democrats, they are going to hold them responsible for
the cost of energy.
So I would just like to say to you, the election is coming up and
everything looks pretty good for your side of the aisle, but you better
do something about energy, because the American people want something
done and they want it done quickly.
____________________
DON'T ALLOW PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished Speaker, and I
thank her for her leadership.
We will in just a few minutes begin to talk about a very serious
issue on universal access to health care, so I rise today to remind my
colleagues that we are still in a very troubling conflict in Iraq. We
are still spending billions and billions and billions of dollars. Even
in the last few days I have seen the loss of young sons, young
brothers, young men in my own community. We have buried a number of our
fallen soldiers in the Houston, Harris County and South Texas
metroplex.
We recognize that we are a nation that is willing to send her very
best, her very brightest, to the front lines of Iraq and Afghanistan
and places around the world to defend the honor, but yet the need for
freedom and democracy. But this is a war that the American people over
and over again, 60 to 70 percent have said we must bring our troops
home. The American people have said enough is enough.
We honor those who have fallen. We honored them in this memorial
week. I was in Aviano, Italy, and celebrated there at the Air Force
base with the young men and women, the fallen, who fell on foreign
soil. It was my honor and my privilege to be there, and I will do so
wherever there is the opportunity to say thank you to those that live
injured, for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. We will never
dishonor their service.
So I claim that today we can call the actions in Iraq, albeit my
opposition to the offense or the invasion of Iraq by this country, we
can call it a military success. We can call it a military success and
bring our soldiers home.
What disturbs me, Madam Speaker, is that this Nation, this
administration, is negotiating for foreign bases on Iraq soil, U.S.
bases on the soil of Iraq, when over and over again this Congress has
voted against maintaining long-term bases, U.S. bases, in Iraq. We have
said it clearly. We have said it over and over again.
So I raise the question as to why is the administration engaging in
negotiations for permanent military bases without the engagement and
the affirmation of this Congress that has said to the administration
that we do not want permanent military bases and neither do the people
of the United States?
Now, I recognize that we have the responsibility of transition as the
new administration comes in. I am believing that the new administration
that will come in to be President of the United States will be the
administration that will oppose this war and that will begin to bring
our troops home.
But if, for example, we were concerned about transition, let me
simply say, we are aware that we have a Central Command in the region.
It is an active Central Command. It will be headed by General Petraeus
for the next couple of months.
There is no reason why when that region is in need that under the
Central Command the appropriate military operation can be dispatched,
if necessary, to the region, to Iraq and to other places around. It
seems to be a smack in the face of Congress that has over and over
again said that it is time to bring our troops home, that we cannot
spend millions and millions and billions more of dollars in Iraq.
It is time for Iraq to secure its own security, to defend itself, to
build its own military bases. And, yes, we are quite happy to continue
to train those Iraqi soldiers, which I visited with in the last couple
of months. I was there. I saw them. They are committed and dedicated,
the Iraqi soldiers. Their generals are committed and dedicated. Give
them the opportunity to finance their own bases, to finance the
military. But enough is enough. I believe the American people have
spoken.
So I say to the administration, we will not tolerate permanent bases
on the soil. And I want to thank the Progressive Caucus with the
leadership of Congresswoman Woolsey and Congresswoman Lee, the Out of
Iraq Caucus with Congresswoman Waters, both of which I am a member of.
We have worked on this. We have heard from the American people. We have
heard testimony.
Frankly, this is an insult to the Members of the United States
Congress, when we know that there are alternatives to ensuring the
safety and security of the region, and we also know that the American
people have spoken.
I stand with the American people. The needs are great. We must use
this money for other reasons, bringing our soldiers home, training
them, creating a green economy, making sure that we have the education
we should and the health care that we should. It is time now to bring
our troops home, and certainly it is time now to end this frivolous
debate about permanent bases in Iraq.
____________________
SUNSET MEMORIAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, as many times before, I stand
before this House with yet another Sunset Memorial.
Madam Speaker, it is now June 10, 2008, in the land of the free and
the home of the brave, but before the sun set today in America, almost
4,000 more children, defenseless unborn, were killed by abortion on
demand. And that is just today, Madam Speaker. That is more than the
number of innocent lives that this Nation lost on September 11, only it
happens every day.
It has now been exactly 12,923 days since the tragedy called Roe v.
Wade was first handed down. Since then, the very foundation of this
Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 50 million of its own
children. Some of them, Madam Speaker, cried and screamed as they died,
but because it was amniotic fluid going over the vocal cords instead of
air, we couldn't hear them.
All of them had at least four things in common, Madam Speaker. First,
they were each just little babies who had done nothing wrong to anyone;
and each one of them died a nameless and
[[Page 12040]]
lonely death; and each one of their mothers, whether she realized it
immediately or not, will never quite be the same; and all the gifts
that these children might have brought to humanity are now lost
forever.
And yet even in the glare of such tragedy, this generation still
clings to a blind, invisible ignorance, while history repeats itself
and our own silent genocide mercilessly annihilates the most helpless
of all victims, those yet unborn.
Madam Speaker, perhaps it is time for those of us in this Chamber to
remind ourselves of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson said,
``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is
the chief and only objective of good government.''
The phrase in the 14th Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution.
It says, ``No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law.''
Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and
their constitutional rights is why we are all here. The bedrock
foundation of this Republic is that clarion declaration of the self-
evident truth that all human beings are created equal and endowed by
their creator with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. Every conflict and battle our Nation has ever
faced can be traced to our core commitment to this self-evident truth.
It has made us the beacon of hope for the entire world, Madam Speaker.
It is truly who we are.
And yet today another day has passed, and we in this body have failed
again to honor that commitment. We have failed our sworn oath and our
God-given responsibility as we broke faith with nearly 4,000 more
innocent American babies who died today without the protection we
should have given them.
Madam Speaker, let me conclude in the hope that perhaps someone new
who hears this Sunset Memorial will finally tonight embrace the truth
that abortion really does kill little babies, that it hurts mothers in
ways that we can never express, and that 12,923 days spent killing
nearly 50 million children in America is enough; and that the America
that rejected human slavery and marched into Europe to arrest the Nazi
Holocaust is still courageous and compassionate enough to find a better
way for mothers and their unborn babies than abortion on demand.
So tonight, Madam Speaker, may we each remind ourselves that our own
days in this Chamber and in this sunshine of life are also numbered,
and all too soon each one of us will walk from these doors for the very
last time. And if it should be that Congress is allowed to convene on
yet another day to come, may that be the day when we finally hear the
cries of the innocent unborn in our Nation. May that be the day when we
find the humanity, the courage and the will to embrace together our
human and our constitutional duty to protect these, the least of our
tiny little brothers and sisters in America from this murderous scourge
upon our Nation called abortion on demand.
Madam Speaker, it is June 10, 2008, 12,923 days since Roe v. Wade
first stained the foundation of this Nation with the blood of its own
children. This in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
____________________
SOLVING THE CHALLENGE WITH REGARD TO GAS PRICES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I go home, as most Members of
Congress do, every weekend and talk with constituents and try to get a
sense of what their concerns are and make certain that we are
representing them responsibly here, and upon my last visits home on the
weekends over the past 3 or 4 months, their concerns are the concerns
of Americans all across this country, and that is the concern of energy
prices, of gas prices. They aren't just concerned, Madam Speaker; they
are mad. They are mad because they see absolute and utter inaction here
in the United States Congress. American values and American vision
dictates that we do all we can to solve the challenge that we have
before us as it relates to gas prices.
{time} 1830
Four dollars a gallon, we hit that mark over this past weekend.
I wonder what price per gallon it will take to get this Democrat
majority to act, to work to increase supply. Is it $5 a gallon, $6 a
gallon, is it $10 a gallon? Will it happen then that this Democrat
majority will then allow this Congress to vote on increasing supply?
Now, there are all sorts of things that ought to be done. The kinds
of things that have been described by my friend on the other side of
the aisle are appropriate, and we ought to do them. I support,
strongly, conservation. We can do a lot more in the area of
conservation and should incentivize conservation.
I support, strongly, finding that alternative fuel and incentivizing
genius of the American people to identify what that is so that future
generations won't be reliant on fossil fuel. But right now, it's
imperative that we work to increase supply.
This problem isn't new. This distinction between folks on the
Democrat side of the aisle and the Republican party on this side of the
aisle isn't new. We have had vote after vote after vote over the past
10 or 15 years on increasing the supply of oil in this Nation, and time
after time after time our friends on the other side of the aisle have
not risen to the occasion. You talk about Alaska exploration, ANWR
exploration, House Republicans have supported that 91 percent of the
time, 91 percent of House Republicans have supported Alaska
exploration; Democrats, 86 percent have opposed it.
Jay Leno, I don't know if you heard, Jay Leno said Democrats right
now say that it will take 10 years if we explore in Alaska to realize
any new gasoline, and then he said, that's exactly what they said 10
years ago.
It goes on and on. Coal-to-liquid technology, 97 percent of
Republicans have supported coal-to-liquid technology, 78 percent of
Democrats have opposed coal-to-liquid technology. Oil-shale
exploration, every time it has come up 97 percent of Republicans have
supported it; House Democrats, 86 percent have opposed it. Deep-sea
exploration, House Republican support, 81 percent; House Democrats, 83
percent opposed.
What about increasing refining capacity? House Republicans, 97
percent support; House Democrats, 96 percent opposed. So 91 percent, in
summary, of House Republicans, have historically voted to increase the
production of American-made oil and gas and 86 percent of House
Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of
American-made oil and gas.
It has been said that every other Nation on Earth views their natural
resources as an economic asset. House Democrats, this majority,
believes that natural resources in this land are an environmental
hazard.
What do we do? Well, I want to commend Representative Tim Walberg of
Michigan, who is leading the fight to decrease gas prices. He has filed
a discharge petition on House Resolution 3089, which will increase
refining construction and capacity, boost alternative energy
development, provide incentives to increase nuclear energy and allow
for environmentally friendly domestic oil production.
I call on the Speaker, and I call on the leadership of this House to
bring this commonsense bill to the floor. These are real solutions for
the American people, American energy for Americans. It's the American
vision, it's the American values that are across this land.
The American people understand and appreciate the challenges we face.
They just can't understand and appreciate why this majority won't act
to increase supply.
____________________
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cohen). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Watson) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
[[Page 12041]]
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, this will be the first of a special order
pinpointing and focusing on the need for universal health care
insurance.
There will be speakers today that will point up various areas of
need. But in opening this hour, I would like to say that over the past
15 years there has been incremental reforms that have expanded health
care coverage to limited populations and have crowded out an increasing
number of Americans from the private insurance market.
Preventable and mismanaged chronic disease, such as asthma, cancer,
diabetes and heart disease, are the leading causes of death and
disability in the United States and account for the vast majority of
health care spending. They have affected the quality of life for 133
million Americans and are responsible for 7 out of every 10 deaths in
the United States, killing more than 1.7 million Americans every year.
Chronic diseases are also the primary driver of health care costs,
accounting for more than 75 cents of every dollar we spend on health
care in this country.
As reported by the Centers for Disease Control, in 2005, this
amounted to $1.5 trillion of the trillions spent on health. Despite
worldwide problems, the issue of chronic disease does not register with
large segments of the public. As policymakers, we must raise the
awareness of the health care crisis on this issue of the uninsured and
underinsured as a primary concern in Congress.
Now, there is legislation to ensure that all Americans will have
access guaranteed by law through the highest quality and most cost-
effective health care services, regardless of their employment, income
or health status.
The following Members will be speaking on this issue, and I call up
as the first speaker the young lady from Texas, Representative Sheila
Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from
California for yielding, and let me add my appreciation for the vast
knowledge that she brings, particularly as it relates to the
comparisons of our health care, to the international system of health
care, having been an ambassador and knowing, really, some of the stark
contrasts between nations that are developing and have a better health
care system than we have here in the United States.
I want to add my appreciation as well to Chairman John Conyers, who
has single-handedly led the cause and the fight for universal access to
health care, particularly as it relates to the legislation that all of
us are looking forward to seeing passed, because this is legislation
that clearly is enormously important.
So I want to speak today on some issues and share some stories of
individuals who are suffering in the State of Texas. Maybe those who
are within the sound of our voices will understand that we do not take
your plight lightly. We have heard Members come on the floor of the
House and talk about the spiraling gasoline prices, we have heard them
talk about the crisis in the housing market.
I was in my district, and we had an hour-long program, and we really
couldn't end the program. It was a television program, and all of the
questions were on the foreclosure market. The producer came out and
said, they don't want to ask any other questions. They just want to ask
about the foreclosures.
People are hurting, and if you juxtapose the high food gasoline
prices high food prices and your mortgage being foreclosed on, or no
place to live, can you imagine what it is like? You can imagine, with
no health insurance, catastrophic conditions, with the backdrop of the
spiraling unemployment, then I would say that we have a human crisis,
an American crisis where people are falling on the spear.
Yesterday, I introduced the Medicare Efficiency and Development of
Improvement of Care and Services Act, MEDICS Act, of 2008. It is a
complement to universal access to healthcare. But if we had universal
access to health care, many of these issues would not have to be, if
you will, remedied piece by piece.
Just to give you a very brief overview, the bill that I introduced
has an elimination of discriminatory copayment rates of Medicare
outpatient mental health services. It also prohibits and limits certain
sales and marketing activities under Medicare Advantage, and it has
exemptions from income and resources for determination of eligibility
for low-income subsidy.
One of the key elements is if you are on Medicaid and you die, this
eliminates the ability of States to collect from your estate, you don't
have anything. It may be that you are leaving minimal resources to your
children, and lo and behold, they want to grab that up to pay for the
long-term care that you needed while you were in the hospital under
Medicaid, more insult to your dignity.
So very quickly let me say that I rise to support H.R. 676, the
United States National Health Insurance Act, that is sponsored and
introduced by my colleague, Chairman Conyers, of which I am an original
cosponsor. I would just simply say in the State of Texas when you look
at HIV and STDs, for example, there are 22,948 total AIDS cases in
Harris County, this was in 2005. These are people who may have health
issues we have to address.
According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, 72.9
percent of African Americans in Texas are overweight, while 60.3
percent of the Anglo white population are overweight. That bodes for an
unfortunate health situation.
H.R. 676 would cover health care costs and would decrease for both
families and for businesses. Currently the average family of four
covered under an employee plan spends $4,225 on health care, $2,713 on
premiums and $1,522 on medical services.
I would say to you that under H.R. 676 a family of four making the
medium income of $56,200 would pay about $2,700 for all health care
costs, including the current Medicare.
Is that not a reformation of this system? Is that not a light at the
end of the tunnel? Businesses would benefit as well. They would pay a
4.75 percent payroll tax for all health care costs, including the
current Medicare tax. For an employee making a median annual family
income of $56,000, the employee would pay about $2,700 per year. That
is the answer that we are giving tonight and why we are here on floor
of the House.
We want you to know, our colleague, that there is relief. We can move
H.R. 676, which is based on the traditional Medicare model and provide
health care coverage for a family of four that is drastically different
from the crisis that they are facing today, because today they are
facing a crisis such that if they are in any catastrophic illness you
can be assured that they will have no relief.
Let me close by sharing with you two very painful stories, and you
can understand why, might I say to you, there are pages and pages of
stories of those who are suffering in this dilemma of having to pay for
all of these expenses and short-changing their families on health care.
The lack of health care leads to death. Impossibly high gas prices
can lead you to public transportation, it may lead you to walking. It
may lead you not to going to places where you have not often gone, but
you are still alive and might even be healthy. The lack of food may
mean that you have a little less on the table, and it may mean your
health, but it actually will not kill you directly.
Certainly we know that we want better education and our troops home.
But if you do not have good health care, it can lead to your death.
Whether it's preventive health care, whether it's mental health
services, it can actually lead to the death of your loved one. Poor
health care can lead to the death of your loved one.
We are speaking of life and death. This story is from Mike. ``I lost
my job as an RN for advocating for better staffing ratios and patient
safety.'' That means here is a registered nurse who is trying to fight
for better quality of health care, got fired. ``With that job loss, I
lost my medical insurance. On New Year's Day I had an ocular stroke.
[[Page 12042]]
I was having symptoms for a couple of days prior, but without medical
insurance, decisions are made in a different manner.''
{time} 1845
``I put off the treatment because I didn't have money to pay. In the
process I delayed treatment, and now I am blind in that eye. If I had
insurance, I would have sought treatment sooner. I am a health care
professional who delayed treatment decisions because of the cost and
lack of insurance.''
This person could have died. Now they are blind which limits I
imagine some of their occupational opportunities. They are blind
because America allowed them to live without health insurance.
This is my final testament to the crisis we are in. This is from
Robin: ``My daughter has a developmental disorder, something in the
autism spectrum, her pediatrician has guessed. I am not certain of the
extent of the diagnosis of her disorder due to the lack of my funds,
being a single mother, and lack of quality health insurance. I can
scrape together money to take her to the doctor if she has any routine
sickness, and I push my budget the best I can to pay for 30 minutes of
private speech therapy a week to complement what the school system
provides. But there is so much more she needs. She could do so much
better with medication that could possibly help her lead a decent life.
If I could afford to get the extensive tests and evaluations, and even
then, who knows if I could afford the medicine. She cannot qualify for
SSI or Medicaid; they say I make too much money. That is an outrage.
She cannot qualify for CHIPs; again, they say I make too much money.
But I don't. Once I pay for day care, speech therapy, clothing, car
insurance, food and shelter, transportation, the rising cost of
gasoline, $38,000 gross without child support is not enough money. Can
you imagine that they say $38,000 kicks her out of Medicaid and the
CHIP program, especially when all your daughter can qualify for is a
super-expensive health insurance risk pool. What can I do? I want the
American dream, but I cannot have it. I am stuck in this old, falling-
apart apartment with an old car and inadequate health coverage with my
sweet, 7-year-old daughter. God help us, she deserves better.''
God help America. America deserves better. This universal access to
health care is what we all should believe is the American dream.
I close by simply saying what our Founding Fathers said: We all are
created equal with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness. I will just simply say that God has to help us
come to our senses and pass this legislation, H.R. 676, authored by my
dear friend, John Conyers, and cosponsored by so many of us, otherwise
God help us.
I thank the gentlelady for her great leadership on this issue.
I regard health care as one of the most pressing issues facing this
country and the world. I have been a staunch supporter of legislation
that aims to eliminate health disparities in this country, fight the
HIV/AIDS pandemic, combat the childhood obesity crisis facing this
Nation, and provide health insurance coverage for all Americans. Most
of all, I strongly believe that quality healthcare should be affordable
and accessible to all.
Yesterday, I introduced the Medicare Efficiency and Development of
Improvement of Care and Services Act (MEDICS Act) of 2008. For decades,
Democrats have been fighting to fix the broken America's healthcare
system and this initiative is an important tool to make sure that our
most vulnerable get the healthcare they need.
As a long supporter of Universal Health Care, I happy to announce
that this legislation puts our healthcare system on the correct path of
providing access to health care for our Nation's low income, minority
and elderly populations. On Friday June 6, 2008, my colleague Senator
Max Baucus introduced a health care reform bill that addresses these
key problematic issues continuing to plague our health care system. I
am happy to announce that The MEDICS Act is the companion bill to
Senator Baucus' legislation, uniting Congress on one accord to push for
crucial healthcare reform. In 2007, there was an estimated 47 million
people uninsured in our Nation. This is un-American and unacceptable.
Now is the time to ensure that every citizen has access to the proper
health care benefits they need.
In my house companion I have added a section requiring that within
one year of enactment the Secretary, in coordination with the
Association of American Medical Colleges, shall submit to Congress an
effective plan to increase the number of primary care physicians
particularly those practicing in counties, cities, or towns
``underserved'' or with a disproportionate number of Medicare-eligible
and/or Medicare recipients. Without our primary care physicians, which
act as the gateway to care we can never move towards an effective
universal healthcare plan.
According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, Texas
HIV/STD Surveillance Report, there were 22,948 total AIDS cases in
Harris County in 2005; a figure which almost doubled the next closest
county in Texas.
According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, 72.9
percent of African Americans in Texas are overweight or obese while
60.3 percent of White residents are obese.
The need for a high-quality, accessible and affordable health care
system has never been more urgent. There are currently 47 million
uninsured Americans, 8 million of whom are children. Another 50 million
are underinsured. Although the U.S. spends twice as much on health care
per capita as countries with universal coverage, the World Health
Organization ranks us 37th in overall health system performance.
This Congress, I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 676, ``The United
States National Health Insurance Act,'' introduced by my colleague
Congressman Conyers. This act would allow for every American to receive
heath Insurance.
H.R. 676 would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health
care system that improves and expands the already existing Medicare
program to all U.S. residents, and all residents living in U.S.
territories. The goal of the legislation is to ensure that all
Americans will have access, guaranteed by law, to the highest quality
and most cost effective health care services regardless of their
employment, income or health care status. You, the American people
called for universal health care, as it was one of the most prominent
issues for Americans in the 2006 elections.
The need for a high-quality, accessible and affordable health care
system has never been more urgent. There are currently 47 million
uninsured Americans, 8 million of whom are children. Another 50 million
are underinsured. Although the U.S. spends twice as much on health care
per capita as countries with universal coverage, the World Health
Organization, ranks us 37th in overall health system performance. Major
American corporations such as General Motors bear the brunt of an
outdated health care system because they are at a competitive
disadvantage relative to their international counterparts who pay less
for health care. A Harvard study found that almost half of all
bankruptcies are partially or fully related to health care bills.
Universal health care would not cause a financial burden on American
families. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), ``If
the U.S. were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single
payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of
health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of
universal coverage.''
Under H.R. 676, health care costs would decrease for both families
and for businesses. Currently, the average family of four covered under
an employee health plan spends a total of $4,225 on health care
annually--$2,713 on premiums and another $1,522 on medical services,
drugs and supplies. This figure does not include the additional 1.45
percent Medicare payroll tax levied on employees. Under H.R. 676, a
family of four making the median family income of $56,200 per year
would pay about $2,700 for all health care costs, including the current
Medicare tax.
Businesses will also save money under universal health care, as set
forth by H.R. 676. In 2006, health insurers charged employers an
average of $11,500 for a health plan for a family of four. On average,
the employer paid 74 percent of this premium, or $8,510 per year. This
figure does not include the additional 1.45 percent payroll tax levied
on employers for Medicare. Under H.R. 676, employers would pay a 4.75
percent payroll tax for all health care costs, including the current
Medicare tax. For an employee making the median annual family income of
$56,200, the employer would pay about $2,700 per year.
Our plan, H.R. 676, ``The United States National Health Insurance
Act,'' guarantees every resident of the United States access to a full
range of medically necessary services, including primary care,
prescription drugs, mental health care and long term care. There are no
co-pays or deductibles under this program. The role of the government
would be limited to collecting revenues and disbursing payments;
[[Page 12043]]
care would continue to be delivered privately. Patients could continue
to use the same hospital, physician or health clinic from which they
currently receive services. H.R. 676 is supported by over 210 labor
unions and more than 100 grassroots groups across the country. The
former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, two former
Surgeons General and 14,000 physicians support national health
insurance.
H.R. 676 is based on the traditional Medicare model, in which the
government negotiates and pays service fees for private and public
providers and mails its enrollees a card that gives them access to the
doctors and hospitals of their choice. This system does not divert
profits to insurance companies. This legislation is focused, first and
foremost, on serving the American people, not on generating profits for
big companies.
Lack of health-care is no longer just a concern of those living in
poverty. According to recent reports, more than one-third of the nearly
47 million uninsured Americans coming from households with family
incomes of $40,000 or more, lack of health insurance has become a worry
of the middle class.
There is no reason why this country should continue down a dreadfully
deleterious road of denying healthcare to any citizen of this country
who needs it. Many of the health conditions, such as diabetes, obesity,
kidney failure, cancer, hypertension and HIV/AIDS, the prevalence of
which plagues our community the most, could be curtailed or even
prevented if everyone had access to health insurance. I will continue
to fight hard for the most effective policy measures that aim to narrow
the racial health disparity gap.
Ms. WATSON. I thank you, and call on the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Congresswoman Watson. And I want to thank
Chairman Conyers for organizing this special order and for his
leadership on universal health care.
I am glad to join with my colleague, Diane Watson, and Jan Schakowsky
is here, and we just heard from Sheila Jackson-Lee, to highlight the
need for health care for not just some Americans but all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, more than 47 million Americans are uninsured, an
increase of 6 million since this administration took office. Nearly 10
million of those uninsured are children, children under the age of 18.
It is unforgivable that a country as wealthy as the United States of
America cannot find a way to provide health insurance to its entire
population.
Actually, when there is a will, there is said to be a way. So the
United States must not have the will to provide health coverage to
every single American.
Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, are
important safety nets for children whose families cannot afford to
purchase health insurance. However, even with these programs, 10
million children still lack health insurance. Currently, Healthy
Families, which is what CHIP is called in the State of California,
Healthy Families serves 1.2 million children, more than 10,000 children
in my district. And last year we, the Congress, had the opportunity to
expand CHIP to provide services to nearly 4 million more children. This
legislation would have provided health care to an additional 607,000
children in California, and would have provided CHIP coverage to many
of the 5,000 children without health insurance in my district.
Unfortunately, however, the administration recklessly vetoed this
expansion. Imagine when the United States is spending over $338 million
a day in Iraq, we can't find $35 million over 5 years. So divide that,
5 into 35 is 7, so that would be $7 million a year to provide an
additional 4 million children with health insurance.
What are these priorities?
No child should be denied quality care because his or her parent
cannot afford to purchase health insurance. No parent should have to
choose between medicine for his or her child and food on the table.
Mr. Speaker, even if we are able to insure every child, that still
leaves nearly 40 million Americans without health insurance. We hear
stories every day about people who lack medical care and whose only
option is to go to our already overcrowded emergency rooms to seek
care. Our Nation's health centers, hospitals and emergency rooms are
doing everything they can to provide medical care to the uninsured and
underinsured, but they cannot fill the need.
Actually, when an emergency room is the care center, the underinsured
and uninsured do not get access to important preventive care and they
do not get access to screenings to prevent disease or catch and treat
them early. The shame is that we can detect and treat diseases when
caught and treated early. So many uninsured, for example, who are
surviving cancer and other serious diseases could have been treated
with access to screenings and treatment.
No one should have to put off important medical screenings like a
mammogram because she cannot afford the cost and doesn't have the time
for a wait list for free screenings. If a woman is diagnosed with
breast cancer, she should not have to choose between food on the table
or rent. What an awful choice to be asked to make, particularly if you
have a family to support. No one should be denied necessary medical
care because they cannot afford it. We must refocus our priorities. We
must use the money that we are spending on Iraq to invest in our
Nation's health care system. The 47 million Americans without health
insurance deserve no less.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to find the best
possible solution to address this crisis, and I thank you again,
Congresswoman Watson, for holding this special order.
Ms. WATSON. We thank you for your depth of understanding of the
issue.
Now I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms.
Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Congresswoman Watson, for organizing this
and allowing me to participate tonight. I also want to thank our
colleague, Representative Conyers, for his long-time passionate
leadership on universal health care. I don't know if he is going to get
here tonight, but he certainly has been a steady and consistent voice
for health care and health care reform. Thanks to his efforts and that
of so many others, I believe we are on the brink of accomplishing this
long-awaited goal, and that this time we will be successful in
providing affordable, guaranteed health coverage for all Americans.
When I first ran for office in 1990 for the State legislature, I
proclaimed that as my goal in public service, that one day to be able
to contribute to the victory of allowing all Americans to receive
health coverage. I have always felt that this richest nation in the
world, that it is a shame and really an embarrassment that Americans,
unlike citizens and residents of every other industrialized nation in
the world, that we don't make health care accessible to all of our
citizens. It is unacceptable and in many ways un-American. It is not in
the tradition of our country, which is to take care of each other.
There are lots of people across the country who are ready to make
this fight. Another one of the heroes I wanted to highlight tonight is
my friend and until recently when he retired from active practice my
physician, my personal physician, Dr. Quentin Young of Chicago. Quentin
Young was the chairman of medicine at Cook County Hospital. He was the
president of the American Public Health Association. He is a founder of
Health and Medicine Policy Research Group in Chicago, and a co-founder
of the Physicians For a National Health Program. And in each of his
roles, expanding access to quality health care has been his top
priority. He is one of the most articulate and passionate and
consistent long-term spokespeople for single payer health care in our
country, for providing affordable, comprehensive and quality health
care for all.
And as Dr. Young frequently says, ``We feel universal health care is
no longer the best answer, it is the only answer. There was a time when
there were alternatives that might have worked, but that day is
passed.''
He goes on to say, ``I certainly think it is attainable. It has been
attained in certain countries that aren't very different from us. I
totally come down on the side of health care being a human
[[Page 12044]]
right. It is very hard for me to see a coherent let alone a moral or
decent argument against it because illness doesn't distribute itself
according to the ability to care for yourself and be cared for. It
strikes children. It strikes the poor. It strikes the most needy, and
the most ill-protected disproportionately. That is the correlation.''
Cardinal Bernardin, also from Chicago, a hero on health care, said it
best. He said, ``Health care is so important to human life and dignity
that it is the responsibility of society to offer access to decent
health care to every person.''
And I was pleased that he didn't say every citizen. He said every
person. So the answer is that it should be considered a right
guaranteed by society, which means it must be a responsibility of
government.
And as we enter this new round of discussions, more and more people
and organizations have come to agree with Dr. Young and John Conyers'
conclusions. New coalitions have formed, including small and big
businesses, consumer and labor groups, providers and the faith
community, and organizations representing people with disabilities and
living with chronic diseases. The time has come for action.
In 2002, the Institutes of Medicine estimated that 18,000 people a
year died because they were uninsured. They were unable to afford
preventive services, screenings that would have provided early
warnings, prescription drugs or medical care. Today the Urban Institute
estimates that annual death from uninsurance are up to 22,000 people
every year. That is 432 people each week, 60 people each and every day
who die because the United States of America alone in the
industrialized world does not guarantee affordable health care to our
people. It is a horrendous statistic.
But it is only a partial description of the catastrophes we face. Our
health care system is becoming completely dysfunctional for patients
and for those who care for them.
Even being covered by insurance is no guarantee. The Commonwealth
Fund has just released a new study that concludes between 2003 and
1997, the number of uninsured Americans grew by 60 percent. There are
now 25 million insured people who could face financial catastrophe if
they become sick or injured.
Consider this: One in five Americans under the age of 65, many of
them insured, live with medical debt. I say under 65 because many
people are waiting for that birthday, can't wait to get there because
then finally Medicare, a national health insurance for people over 65
and those with disabilities who qualify, do get health care.
{time} 1900
Medical bills are the leading cause of about half of all personal
bankruptcies. High deductibles and co-pays, limits on payments, denials
of needed care, all of these shift burdens to individuals and families
who are already struggling. These numbers are staggering, and it's a
national shame that while spending 50 percent more than any other
country in the world on health care, we fall so dismally short in
providing a health care guarantee.
But it's also important to remember that behind each number is a
person, our friends, our neighbors, our family, our colleagues,
ourselves; people like the Wells family from Illinois, who accumulated
over $175,000 in medical expenses while waiting for their employer's 6-
month waiting period for coverage to expire.
Or Susan, who can't afford the tests her doctor wants her to have to
deal with her high blood pressure; or Constance, who moved back to
Illinois to care for a family member and can't find a job that provides
affordable benefits.
I want to close by saying that winning the fight for guaranteed
health care for all is not just the right thing to do, it's the smart
thing to do. Too many potential entrepreneurs are locked into jobs that
provide health care, unable to leave and create new businesses that
keep our economy strong and provide new jobs.
Too many businesses that are providing coverage for their workers are
competitively disadvantaged because their foreign competitors operate
in countries with national health care. They too want us to get it
together and adopt universal health care.
So, again, I want to thank Congresswoman Watson and again, I want to
thank Congressman Conyers for his leadership.
Ms. WATSON. We would like to thank you, the Honorable Jan Schakowsky,
for a thorough analysis of what the problem in access to health care
really is. Thank you.
The Representative from Kansas, Nancy Boyda, Dr. Representative
Christian Christensen, Mr. Speaker, you were on our list to make a
presentation in this hour. Would you like to do it? And I don't know
what's protocol. Mr. Speaker, Representative Schakowsky will take your
place temporarily so you can make your presentation if you choose.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I couldn't have a better substitute.
Ms. WATSON. I just want to say that Members in this first hour have
struck a chord with the American people and the needs. And when we talk
about homeland security, it is not the land, it's the people on the
land. And I am very disturbed that we're losing too many of our people
who help defend this land to all kinds of diseases and health problems
that need not be. With the proper kind of access to health care, we
wouldn't be seeing so many of our viable citizens perish. We could do
something about it.
So we intend, Mr. Speaker, to have a series of these discussions with
America. And we do hope that maybe we can pull in CNN, Nightline,
that's ABC, Channel 7, to hold a periodic series of these discussions
about access to health care.
We do hope that you're able to make your presentation at this time,
Mr. Speaker.
All right. I understand that you won't be speaking at this time, so
let me--how much time do we have left on this hour?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thirty minutes.
Ms. WATSON. I would just like to read some of the 51 stories of
Americans with cancer who suddenly find themselves overburdened with
medical bills, and they have gaps in their coverage. These are real
people, Mr. Speaker. These are real Americans who are calling out to
us.
As you know, we've had two very fine proposals coming from Senator
Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama that would address access to
health care.
Over on our side, in our House, we have the valiant efforts over the
years of Congressman John Conyers, Jr. He would have been here today,
but there was a conflict. But he will continue the drum beat and the
call for us to get down to business so we can have accessible health
care.
I'd like to take some time to read you the plight of real Americans.
This one is Susan M. She said, ``My husband, Tom, was diagnosed with
lymphoma in 1996, just 4 months after our daughter was born. He
underwent three series of chemotherapy before dying of encephalitis in
2001. At that time the entire family was insured through his employer.
``The monthly premiums went to $900 per month, and since I had left
my job to care for him, I didn't have many options. I was able to get
the kids covered by Medicaid, and I signed up for Ingram Health, which
only covers doctors visits and prescriptions, not hospitalization or
long-term treatment. This carried us along until a mammogram showed I
had breast cancer in 2006, then I was put in to the breast and cervical
cancer program. I received excellent care and am currently cancer-free.
``Earlier this year I took a contract position for 6 months at 20 to
30 hours per week. Working again helped my attitude tremendously. The
depression I had struggled with for 10 years started to lift, and I was
feeling positive about my future prospects.
``But, of course, the extra income meant that my kids were no longer
eligible for Medicaid. So I had the added stress of finding insurance
for them. I was afraid that my eligibility in the
[[Page 12045]]
breast and cervical cancer program was also in jeopardy, so I never
told my case manager about working.
``Now, the contract has run out and I'm looking for work again. I'm
afraid that my coverage under the breast and cancer program will end
before I can get a job with benefits. And the bill for the children's
insurance will be due in a few weeks. And I worry about what impact a
pre-existing condition will have on my job prospects.
``It doesn't seem fair that my health should be tied so punitively to
a job. It just adds to the emotional stress, which is already too high.
``Thank you for reading and thank you for caring.''
That was from Susan M.
Jennifer G says, ``My mother suffered and died with ovarian cancer.
It was terrible. And as with many ovarian cancers, hers was not
detected until it was way too late for successful treatment.
I am 36 years old now. My husband and I are finished having children.
My doctor recommended that I have a hysterectomy because my risk of
getting ovarian cancer is much higher now.
I am lucky enough to have health insurance. Unfortunately, an
accountant working for the insurance company is able to override what
my doctor recommends because they don't want to pay for it. They would
rather take the gamble that I may or may not get the cancer. I, of
course, would rather not gamble with my life.
``I am all for everyone having health insurance and having access to
whatever health care they need. However, being covered by health
insurance does not guarantee that you will get the treatment you need
or any treatment that your doctor might recommend.
``It is not enough to demand coverage for all people. Insurance
companies would still have the power to say no any time they want to
save some money.
``And I don't have the solutions. I can just recommend that this is a
problem on two levels. Getting some kind of universal health care
coverage will just be the first step. Getting insurance companies to
cooperate with doctors decisions will be the next step. This is where
much of the reform will need to happen.
``Plus, I know several people who are fighting cancer and recovering
from cancer. All of them have health insurance. Most of them are being
denied coverage for medicine to fight their cancer. It is pathetic to
have health insurance and not be able to count on it to help you when
you need it the most.''
And Mr. Speaker, just this morning, I was called to be told that one
of our dear friends and PR persons died of cancer at 2 a.m. this
morning. Her name was Pat Tobin. She came from Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, to Los Angeles a couple of decades ago. She has a
daughter, a sister.
And we went to her bedside on Friday, and I could see at that point
that she possibly would not make it through the night. But she did. She
made it until 2:00 a.m. this morning.
And I tell about that particular account because if we could set
priorities in this country to cover the health needs of all Americans,
rather than pour billions of dollars into a conflict 10,000 miles away,
that I see never ending, and I see us involving ourselves in sectorial
problems that we don't even understand. We don't even understand the
language the people speak. How in the world could we understand their
customs and their conflicts with each other?
If we could take that money out of the gopher hole it's in and put it
into research in this country to stop this deadly epidemic of cancer
throughout our land, wouldn't this make our country stronger?
We're losing 4,000, we have lost 4,090 people, and countless innocent
Iraqis and others. I hear it could be as much as 300,000.
But no, we stupidly, stupidly and incorrectly continue to dump
monies, and we don't even take care of our own domestic priorities.
We argued over health care for children? Every child in this country,
whether that child is here with legal papers or not, not only deserves
an education, but deserves health care. What kind of country are we
that let its own people die because insurance companies are saying oh,
no, that's too much?
And we never see their actuarial data, by the way, Mr. Speaker. That
actuarial data could go into investments that fail. We don't know it.
They just up the premium.
And when you have a catastrophic illness or a long-term illness, it
could bankrupt you. Look at Ed McMahon, Tonight Show host, along with
Johnny Carson, for decades. And now he's on CNN on the Larry King Show,
talking about his broken neck and his injuries, and now his Malibu home
is in foreclosure.
{time} 1915
That's an American of prominence who was worth at one time $100
million. But a catastrophic illness could run you into bankruptcy. And
that story is told many, many times.
I will not take the time now, Mr. Speaker, but these are actual
people with actual stories. And we are the policymakers, and we're
going to continue to tell their stories night after night until we, as
a body, until we, as the Congress, can come together and set our
priorities on what is really necessary to keep America strong. And it
might take a new administration.
So we're going to lay the groundwork for the next President and
Commander in Chief of these United States to choose prosperity, to
choose health care, to choose education, to choose social services over
profiteering by your best buddies in the oil industry. You can read
between those lines. And we hope that the next President of the United
States will set, as its higher goal, to keep America healthy and be
sure that every single American and persons here can get that kind of
health care. So together we can conquer.
We should not lose another person to cancer. We should not in this
country because we should have done the kind of in-depth research and
tests so that we could come up with various prescriptions and remedies
to save the lives of so many worthy people.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, for this time. We will be back again
another night.
Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is indeed an honor to join with the previous speakers and you,
Madam Speaker, to speak on this subject that you and Chairman Conyers
and others have brought to this fight.
It has been a long fight. Chairman Conyers and Mr. Dingell and Mr.
Dingell's father I think have had sponsorship of issues such as this
since the 1940s, 60-some-odd years of efforts and introduction of
legislation and debate and discussion, but no bill yet. But we've come
a long way. We've come a long way since the 1940s.
Madam Speaker talked about the individuals who suffer from cancer and
should not have lost their lives because we didn't have adequate
research. I have penned a letter to the Speaker and to Chairman Obey,
who I know are concerned about this issue, asking that we increase NIH
funding in the President's 2009 budget for research on cancer,
diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's disease so
that we double the amount that we had in the budget as requested by
Congress.
In the President's fiscal year 2009 budget, the request for research
at the National Institute of Health for cancer, diabetes, heart
disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's, this could be doubled,
and only a day or so's worth of money that we use for our war efforts
would have to be transferred to make this available.
You know, I think about what the Speaker was talking about, the loss
of lives, and I had to think about Senator Kennedy. Not that one life
is greater than another life. But Senator Kennedy is a colleague who
has been in this hall and is fighting cancer. We hope he will have a
successful fight. But when we see him struck with cancer, and others--
and we know there are people dying every day of cancer--it just seems
to me that it's a shame that
[[Page 12046]]
we don't put more and more money into saving lives and we don't use the
great wealth of this Nation, the intelligence of this Nation, the great
scientific powers of this country to invest in medical research in
saving lives rather than weapons of mass destruction often brought to
us by people who benefit from them and have brought the military
industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about, even
President Nixon had concerns about; and that helped take us from 9/11
into an escalating budget expense of military weapons that caused this
country's budget to be spent so much and its great talent and abilities
in a scientific way to be used on weapons of mass destruction and other
arms of the military industrial complex rather than science and
research to save lives and save humanity.
Who knows which person, which young person or older person, could do
something to save other people's lives let alone give love and hope to
families?
And so with national health care insurance, we could cover people, we
could save lives because if we had insurance for the people, you could
scope out illnesses earlier whether you're wealthy or poor. You would
have the same opportunity to have preventative care, early treatment,
and diagnosis of illnesses that can cause loss of life. And that early
detection can save lives.
Right now if you're poor, you don't have the opportunity to have that
early detection and your life is taken. And that's an inequity that
this country should not allow to continue and shouldn't have permitted
for all of these years.
There are so many accomplishments that we have seen in this country,
particularly in this year. We've seen our Nation become a more perfect
union in so many ways. But the fundamental right to health care is one
that we have not recognized yet and we must.
We're all here because of the grace of God, and it seems like we
should all have the--at our access and at our disposal what God's
creatures have been able to discover, refine, produce, in the way of
medical care to keep people alive. That just seems like a minimum
thing.
And this country is the only great industrialized country on the face
of the earth without some national health care policy. It seems like in
this area, we are not the first in the Nation, in the world, but we're
last in the world. And that's terrible.
There are doctors that serve in this body, and they're to be admired
for giving their time. And I'm sure--I have many friends who are
doctors who give a lot of charity care. But it shouldn't have to be
doctors providing charity care to treat people that otherwise wouldn't
be treated. It should be something that we all give. And I think that
that's the real social need in this country. And when people talk about
values and social consciousness and really religious thought and caring
about others, it really begins with caring about people's health and
sacrificing maybe some of our own resources to have a government system
that can help others with their health care.
So I'm pleased, Madam Speaker, to speak as I have. You have inspired
me with your remarks, the letters you read; and I'm just pleased that
Chairman Conyers has this issue before us.
Madam Speaker, I enter the following for the Record.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
H-232, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Chairman David Obey,
Committee on Appropriations, H-218, U.S. Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey: I am writing to
request that NIH funding in the President's FY09 budget for
the research of cancer, diabetes, heart disease, AIDS,
Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease be doubled in the
final FY09 budget set forth by Congress.
The following are the estimates included in the President's
FY09 Budget request at the National Institutes of Health
(NIH): Cancer: $5.654B; Diabetes: $1.033B; Heart Disease:
$2.111B; Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and
Tuberculosis under National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases: $300M; Alzheimer's Disease: $644M;
Parkinson's Disease: $186M.
These debilitating diseases affect millions of people each
year across the globe. Families are torn apart, emotionally
and financially, by the effects of their contraction.
Congress has a serious responsibility to provide adequate
funding for research that could not only find promising
treatments, but permanent cures.
I cannot imagine a more pressing issue than ensuring the
healthy future of those we are here to represent. The
disparity between the amounts of funding requested for the
war in Iraq and that requested to treat deadly diseases is
incomprehensible. The successful findings of research
programs made possible through increased funding will not
only aid people in the United States, but the rest of the
world, as well. It is my hope that, by taking full advantage
of the scientific resources we have here at home, we can
better our relationships with research teams across the globe
to reach our common goals: finding a cure and establishing
peace.
As always, I remain,
Most Sincerely,
Steve Cohen,
Member of Congress.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close out this hour by
saying all those who came forward this evening we appreciate so much
because you represent different areas of the country, and we hope this
word can get out across the country that we're ready to move forward.
And I do hope that we can follow through on our plans to go over the
media to present the case. So I'm going to request that all Members who
have stories such as the ones I read, submit them to Congressman
Conyer's office so we can compile these and be sure that we've
referenced them as we move closer to accessible health care for all
Americans.
And with that, I would like to close out this hour, reserve the
balance of our time for another evening.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, for the time.
____________________
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walberg) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. WALBERG. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
And just to make sure that my constituents know that I have not
changed States, it's Michigan. It starts with an ``M,'' it's up north,
it's cold, generally. I can understand that. But I'm sure proud to
represent Michigan, and more importantly, the Seventh District of
Michigan in this great House of Representatives.
Tonight I am committed to talking about an issue that is of extreme
importance to my constituents, and in fact from what we read,
constituents of all of our districts all over this great United States
because we are in a time and place and setting right now that, frankly,
we aren't used to.
And may I submit tonight to all who would listen that, frankly, I
don't think we should ever get used to it for America is too great of a
Nation and has been the ambassador of great blessing to the rest of the
world in many cases. It has set the course, has charted the way toward
greater economic achievement, standard of living, advances in
technology, business, industry, education, medicine, and
transportation.
I happen to come from the district where Henry Ford had his home,
made homes and schools for his employees in a great part of my
district, used the resources from that district, including during some
wartimes some Sassafras trees just three miles from my house that were
used to make a light but strong frame for his motor cars with the
absence of steel at that point in time because of the war effort.
I come from the State that has been known as the Motor Capital of the
World, Michigan. Detroit has set the standard that the rest of the
world has followed, emulated, copied, and sometimes even expanded upon,
and yet still America, Michigan, the Motor Capital, charts the way.
Just the other day--I tell this story for a purpose, but just the
other day I had something of an experience happen to me that has never
happened before, nor did I expect it to happen. I filled the tank of my
Harley Davidson motorcycle, which has a 5-gallon tank, and it
[[Page 12047]]
cost me over $20. Now, for those of you that have ridden motorcycles,
it is almost unbelievable to think that a vehicle that gets great gas
mileage, that has a small tank like that would ever cost double digits,
let alone over $20 to fill. But that's the place we're in right now
with gas today on average across the United States at $4.04 a gallon.
My Harley happens to take premium. So I paid $4.27 a gallon for that 5-
gallon tank fill.
{time} 1930
Less than 2 years ago, very seldom, if ever, would I double-digit
fill my tank, even if it were on empty. Now, I don't ride my Harley
Davidson for transportation anymore.
It's primarily for recreation, but 38 years ago when I started riding
my first motorcycle it was for transportation, to get to and from my
work. Over the course of successive years, I would use my motorcycle in
the better seasons of the year, the warmer time, to ride to work and
enjoy that experience but also as commuting. I don't do that anymore,
but we're paying gas prices now that should not be part and parcel of
what America is.
We talk a lot about energy independence and being willing to compete
and make sure that the rest of the world has to compete with us, as
opposed to the other way around. And yet, up to this very day, in the
outcome of what has gone on in Congress, it has been just talk and no
action.
Last week, I heard the governor of our great State of Michigan
announce on a major radio talk show that she was now riding a bicycle
to the Capitol from her governor's residence each day, and when the
host expressed concern about her safety, she said, oh, no problem, my
security detail are following me on their bicycles as well.
Now, that's a nice story. I don't give any negatives toward our
governor for being efficient in her use of energy resources, but you've
got to understand that, when I heard that, it shocked me. And in fact,
if not angered, it frustrated me to think that the governor of the
motor capital of the world was riding a bicycle to work, even though
she has an energy efficient, flex-fuel vehicle that I've seen her use
and seen her actually fill the gas tank with fuel.
Right now, more importantly, getting to the real world of real
people, people who pay those gas prices each day, people who pay their
taxes, that includes supporting this Congress in what we do, right now
most Michigan families that I know of, as I go back to my district each
weekend, are giving up things like nights out eating at restaurants or
family vacations or traveling to family events in order to cover the
rising cost of gasoline. If Congress does not take action soon,
families will be giving up much more than that. They will be giving up
very specific needs, necessities in their life. And in fact, what I've
heard in many town hall meetings, some are already giving up even
necessities of their life in order to pay for the gasoline to get to
their workplace the next day in order to sometime hopefully pay for
some of these necessities.
Just this past weekend, AAA announced that the nationwide average gas
price finally reached over $4 per gallon. It's been much higher in
Michigan for several weeks. High gas prices are affecting families,
truckers, farmers, small business owners. I met a small business owner
in my office today who said the cost of transporting copy machines,
office equipment to and from her client is getting almost prohibitive.
Emergency services, public safety, and numerous other entities in
Michigan's Seventh District and all over this U.S. are being negatively
affected by the high cost, and I say the unnecessarily high cost, of
fuel.
Despite fuel costs at levels previously only seen in Europe,
leadership in this Congress refuses to increase American energy
production. Instead, Speaker Pelosi and leading House Democrats would
rather increase taxes on domestic energy production and increase our
reliance on OPEC or, as suggested last week, sue OPEC for what all
that's worth.
On a related note, the United States Department of Commerce recently
announced the U.S. trade deficit reached its highest level in 13 months
in April. Our trade deficit also increased by $4.1 billion between
February 2007 and February 2008.
This is why our country is facing a rising trade deficit, even though
American-made exports grew by 12 percent in 2007. The issue related to
energy and the cost of energy has a direct influence on this. This is
why we need to provide incentives to increase America's investment in
alternative energy and overall production of energy.
The United States imports around 12 million barrels of oil a day, and
a barrel of oil has gone from $70 to $140 over the last year,
dramatically increasing our trade deficit. Our reliance on imported oil
and increased oil prices means we are sending even more money to
foreign countries and some that don't like us very much at all and
certainly don't share our interests.
For both economic and national security purposes, and again, I want
to reiterate that, national security purposes, Congress needs to
finally get serious about an energy plan that truly lowers prices at
the pump, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and makes real
progress towards energy independence. Instead of increasing our
dependence on OPEC, America needs to return energy production to the
United States. Doing so will create American jobs and provide needed
economic stability and transportation that's efficient and usable to
our American taxpayer.
The answer to our current energy crisis must be multi-pronged, and I
have cosponsored legislation to provide incentives along those lines
for solar, wind, cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel and other green
alternatives. We must increase domestic energy production through
carbon-free nuclear power and clean coal technology as well. I'm also
cosponsoring legislation that would encourage conservation with tax
credits for green buildings and legislation that would spark a
revolution in clean hydrogen technology.
There are many sources where we can move toward if we're willing to
dig down deep and do what's necessary and walk away from those
unnecessarily strong, critical, excessive environmental forces that
don't speak to the welfare of this great country.
Today, I introduced a discharge petition, something that isn't done
regularly in Congress, something that isn't successful regularly but
has been. I trust that this discharge motion will be. As of this point
in time, with just a few hours with that discharge motion being on the
floor, 93 of my colleagues have signed on, moving toward the 218 that
are necessary.
This petition, if effective with 218 signatures, will force a vote on
Congressman Mac Thornberry's No More Excuses Energy Act, an Act
suitably entitled, legislation to increase U.S. energy production and
invest in alternative sources of energy as well.
This appropriately named legislation would impact the price at the
pump and lower electric bills. It would encourage the construction of
new refineries, boost alternative energy, supplemental energy
development by extending the wind production tax credit for 10 years,
giving some certainty that if I were to invest in wind energy
production, I would have a reasonable amount of time to see a return on
my investment.
It would increase American oil production by allowing environmentally
sound drilling in Alaska, the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of
Mexico, and it would help increase our supply of electricity by
encouraging the construction of new nuclear power plants. Even leaders,
in fact, one of the founders of Greenpeace, have come out strongly
encouraging the use of nuclear power as being clean, green energy, not
given over to continuing production of greenhouse gases.
Rather than increase taxes on domestic energy production, as some in
Congress have proposed, I'm working to pass sound legislation that will
bring down the price of gas and reduce our dependence on Middle East
oil. Legislation like the No More Excuses Energy Act of Mac Thornberry
would increase the supply of American energy and increase the number of
good paying jobs in this country and in my district, the Seventh
District of Michigan.
[[Page 12048]]
Policies such as a 23-year moratorium on exploring and developing
offshore production of clean and green natural gas need to be lifted in
order to lower prices and reduce our dependence on foreign gas. Natural
gas provides 23 percent of our Nation's energy. It should be more. And
America is the only developed Nation that prohibits offshore production
and exploration of this clean, green, clean burning resource, and
Americans are paying higher electricity and heating bills as a result
of this.
Like all of you, I'm tired of paying these high prices. Whether it's
for my motorcycle, whether it's for my car or whether it's for my pick-
up truck, I'm tired of paying this because it's unnecessary, as we've
done nothing to change that except talk, and it's time to put action
into place.
I know high prices are affecting all of us. This is unacceptable. It
is unacceptable for America to put up with this. The good people of
south central Michigan, the good people of Michigan, the good people of
the rest of the States in this wonderful country who depend on gasoline
or diesel to get to work, drive their kids to baseball practice and
visit family members deserve better.
The volunteers who offer to drive veterans to VA hospitals in my
district and other districts in other States deserve better.
The volunteers who offer to drive Meals on Wheels to needy senior
citizens deserve better than this.
Our churches and synagogues, our places of worship all across this
great country that will be looking at looming fuel bills that many will
be unable to pay this coming heating season deserve better than this
because America doesn't need to be in this situation.
So I'm delighted that tonight I'm joined by a number of my colleagues
who will add to what has been stated already, probably more eloquently,
with points of experience that come from all over this country. I
appreciate their commitment to doing something more than talking about
energy independence, doing something more than talking about resuming
America's position of leading the world in all areas, including the
area of energy production and usage.
We have blessed the world with our standard of living, with our
technology and with our energy, and it is time to get about that
project again.
So at this time, I would like to ask my good friend and colleague
from Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun, to add to what has been said. I
appreciate you taking the time to be with us this evening.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my colleague.
According to AAA, the average American is paying over $4.04 per
gallon of gasoline today. Meanwhile, Communist China and Fidel Castro's
Communist Cuba are moving forward with drilling for oil and gas just 45
miles off of the coast of Florida and Key West.
We cannot even drill for oil or gas 200 miles off our own shores; yet
congressional Democrats continue to refuse to allow access to American
gas and oil supplies. The average price of gasoline has gone up $1.71
per gallon since Speaker Pelosi's promise, promise, to lower energy
prices at the beginning of the 110th Congress, this Congress.
What have the Democrats done to try to help hardworking Americans?
They're simply seeking political gain from America's pain. Democratic
Presidential candidate Barack Obama said he wants to impose more taxes
on U.S. oil companies. Is that really a smart solution? This will only
drive up prices on Americans, not just for gasoline but for every
product or service purchased. Even worse is that foreign oil companies
will not be subject to this joke of a solution.
The liberals propose raising the Federal tax on gasoline and diesel
by 50 cents per gallon. This is on top of the already existing Federal
tax of 18.4 cents per gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon for
diesel. Under this proposal, you will be paying at today's prices $4.54
a gallon for gas.
Liberals also suggest mandating ethanol and renewable fuel production
and selling it as the answer to America's energy needs. The 2007 lack
of energy bill has already proven that the Democratic solution is
wrong. Mandating the production of renewable fuels has only led to an
increase in world food prices.
{time} 1945
It is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, an outright lie to say
that renewable fuels can meet America's needs in the near future. As a
good southerner, I love my corn bread and grits. It makes no sense to
put corn in the tank of my truck.
The Department of the Interior estimates that there are 112 billion
particles of recoverable oil beneath U.S. Federal lands and coastal
waters, enough oil to fuel 60 million cars for 60 years. The United
States is the only nation in the world that forbids any production on
its Outer Continental Shelf. Despite a decades-long record of
environmentally responsible offshore production, over 80 percent of
America's oil and natural gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf
are completely off limits to exploration and production.
The OCS, Outer Continental Shelf, is estimated to hold at least 419
trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas resources and 86 billion
barrels of oil. To put it in simple terms, this is enough natural gas
to heat 100 million homes for 60 years, and enough oil to drive 85
million cars for 35 years, and enough oil to completely replace current
Middle Eastern oil imports for 59 years.
We've heard time and time again about how drilling off the OCS will
harm the environment. This is hogwash. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
destroyed or damaged hundreds of drilling rigs without causing a single
drop to be spilled, yet congressional Democrats continue to pander to
far left environmentalists instead of mending the pains of hardworking
Americans.
Liberals also prevent any access to billions of barrels of oil
located in ANWR. The entire area of ANWR is larger than the combined
areas of five States--Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, Delaware--yet the proposed drilling area is equal to one-sixth
the size of Dulles Airport here in Washington, D.C.
Energy prices are soaring. And the financial pain that families are
feeling at the pump is forcing them to decide what they can and cannot
spend. Congressional Democrats act as if they have been living under a
rock by continuing to ignore the demands of the American people and
refusing to do anything to lower these burdensome prices.
Skyrocketing gas prices and a risky dependence on fuel supply by
volatile foreign nations highlight our need for an American energy
policy that emphasizes production and decreases our reliance on Middle
Eastern oil.
The United States is the only nation on Earth that forbids
development of its own natural resources. Right now, America is
drilling for ice on Mars, but we cannot drill for oil in America. This
makes no sense. It's crazy. It's idiotic. We must drill on our own
lands, and we must drill now. We must streamline the permitting process
and the refinery processes to get new refineries online, and we must
end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
Mr. Walberg, I greatly appreciate your doing this tonight; it is
absolutely critical. I'm a medical doctor, as you know. I have patients
who have to decide whether they can go to the doctor or not because
gasoline prices are so high. I have patients who have to decide whether
they can put a tank of gas in their car or they can go buy medications.
This has to end. And we can do something about it. We can do something
about it now if we have a responsible energy policy.
Our conference, as you know, has put forth a plan, a reasonable plan,
an economically viable plan, an environmentally sensitive plan, a plan
that will end this dependence upon Middle Eastern oil. It's a plan
where we can provide the energy sources, not only our oil resources,
but provide electric resources by permitting nuclear energy.
We have not built a new refinery in America for 30 years. We have not
built
[[Page 12049]]
a new nuclear reactor in 25 years. This is nuts, it's absolutely crazy.
And we've got to end this idiocy of this current policy.
I applaud what you're doing here tonight. I look forward to further
discussion from our other colleagues. I know that we have colleagues
that want to ask questions and want to engage in a colloquy, if that's
agreeable with you.
Mr. WALBERG. Well, Congressman Broun, I think we want to do that. And
I think you've brought up some points that are interesting to think
about. Not only do we have a governor riding a bicycle to the Capitol,
we are exploring for ice on Mars, but not doing exploration for oil--
that we know is there----
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. That's right, it's just nuts.
Mr. WALBERG. In Alaska, in ANWR.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Anywhere. We've got oil under South Dakota,
North Dakota and Montana. Those three States evidently are just
floating on a sea of oil. There is supposed to be more oil, from what I
understand, than is in the Middle East.
We can end our dependence on these foreign nations that want to
destroy us, that want to destroy America. They hate us. And we're
fueling the insurgency in Iraq. We're fueling these people who hate us.
They hate our freedom, they hate America, they hate everything that we
stand for.
Mr. WALBERG. And for those nations that love America and appreciate
America, we're not standing in a strengthened position that we can
afford to them the assurance that America will be there when necessary
because we can take care of ourselves, we're independent. And I think
those are issues you bring up.
I'm delighted that we have the Dean of the Michigan delegation here,
Congressman Fred Upton, who has been here through a lot and I'm sure
has taken a lot of grief on this issue.
And Congressman Upton, before I turn to you, let me just, for the
record, state, as you and some of my longer serving Republican
colleagues are chastised for not getting this done in the House, you
have attempted to get it done on numerous occasions. If we look back at
the last decade, by the numbers, votes on ANWR exploration: House
Republicans, 91 percent support it; House Democrats, 86 percent
opposed.
Coal-to-liquid: House Republicans, 97 percent support it; House
Democrats, 78 percent opposed. Oil shale exploration: House
Republicans, 90 percent supported every vote on that in the House;
House Democrats, 86 percent opposed.
Moving to the Outer Continental Shelf exploration, where right now
foreign countries like Japan, China and Mexico are within 44-50 miles
of our shores, and they are drilling and taking out natural gas and
oil. On these votes, House Republicans, 81 percent support it; House
Democrats, 83 percent opposed.
And then finally, refinery increased capacity, and now that we're
offering the ``no-more-excuses'' Energy Act, the opportunity to put
them on abandoned military facilities, government lands, House
Republicans, 97 percent support it; House Democrats, 96 percent
opposed.
Who is willing to take action? Who has evidenced that by their votes
in this great body, this House of Representatives? Republicans, 91
percent, when you put it all together, of House Republicans have
historically voted to increase the production of American-made oil and
gas while 86 percent of House Democrats have historically voted against
increasing the production of American-made oil and gas.
And so why do we see an ``energy-less'' energy bill that you talked
about that gives incentives for bicycle riding and not energy? I think
we have to say it's a leadership problem. So I thank you for bringing
up those points.
Congressman Upton, from my home State of Michigan, I want to turn it
over to you as well for a little perspective.
Mr. UPTON. Well, I thank my good friend from my neighboring district.
And I am pleased to join you tonight and my colleagues from Georgia
here and Texas now as well. I'd like to just make a couple of points.
First of all, I'm not on your list of 93 that signed that discharge
petition, but that's because the line was too long. I hope that I can
be there tomorrow when we're on the floor for votes, because you have
to do that, of course--as any student knows of this Chamber--you have
to sign the discharge petition in the well of the House. And when I was
available to do that, the line was way too long. So hopefully tomorrow
I will put you over 100 and get closer to the 218.
I want to say just a couple of things that perhaps haven't been said
yet and enter into a dialogue with my good friend, Dr. Gingrey.
First of all, when we talk about Alaska, I did support drilling in
Alaska multiple times over the last couple of years. It was adopted,
actually, in the House and in the Senate with some bipartisan votes,
and sadly, President Clinton vetoed that bill 10 years ago saying it's
10 years away. Well, here we are today.
We had a couple of very good provisions in that bill that were
important; that all of the oil drilled in Alaska had to stay in the
United States. It couldn't go to China, couldn't go to Korea or Japan,
it had to come here. Of course that meant we would have to have the
refining capability to do it as well. We also made it so that we
limited it to no more than a couple thousand acres. And as the
gentleman from Georgia indicated, that's about the size--for me, it's
the size of Western Michigan University, not Dulles Airport--in an area
that's the size of the State of South Carolina. So that's pretty small.
And of course what we know, too, is that if that oil can be drilled
successfully, we can just build that tangent a little bit to the
spine--you know, those of us from Michigan, you put your hand up like
this. I can't quite do that with Alaska. But if this was Alaska, you
only have to drill that pipeline to the spine, and then it comes down,
and it's economical to do that. So that's number one.
Number two, you know, right now President Bush and other world
leaders are talking to a number of the nations in Arab lands talking
about what they can do to increase production. Because we all believe
in supply and demand. And as the demand continues to rise, because the
supply has stayed relatively stable, the price has only gone up over $4
in my district and yours, and now across the country.
Well, how can we ask the Arabs to increase their production and we
won't do it ourselves? We've said no to Alaska. We've said no to the
offshore drilling off our west and east coasts and even parts of the
Gulf of Mexico. Eighty-five percent of our coastline is off limits, and
yet we know oil is there.
Let's look at different alternatives. One of the alternatives, of
course, is the development of oil shale out west, where it's
anticipated that there could be as much as 1.5 trillion barrels; don't
quite have the procedures down right, it's a couple years away, but
you've got to begin that process, to begin the permit process. Much of
it is on Federal land. No, I'm not talking about Yellowstone Park and
our national parks, but in BLM land. And yet, on a vote that we had in
this House last summer, by six votes we failed to allow the Department
of the Interior to allow the first permits to be approved to allow the
private sector to go out and explore for this oil shale--which we could
develop, I would like to think, within a couple years, four to six,
something along that line. But, in fact, a trillion and a half barrels
are available.
We have to do more on conservation. I was one, coming from Michigan,
a tough vote was increasing CAFE. You know that. We have to have the
R&D, the research and development to help our auto companies develop
the technologies that we, the consumers, want. And Joe Knollenberg from
our State has a great bill that does that that he unveiled just a
couple weeks ago.
We have to do more on conservation, and a number of different steps
that I know can be taken along that front.
But the bottom line is this: If we want the price to come down, we
have to increase the supply. That means we
[[Page 12050]]
have to get away from where we're drilling today. We have to look at
new sites, new techniques, and in fact we can do something, I think,
about that $4 plus gasoline that all of us are pained to pay.
And if I could, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia
to talk a little bit about an issue that I know a little something
about as well, and that is Section 526 up in Canada.
Mr. GINGREY. And I appreciate my colleague from Michigan--both of my
colleagues from Michigan--and my colleague from Georgia. We've got a
number of other Members here as well tonight.
But this issue that Mr. Upton is talking about is Section 526,
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Now,
this is the bill, Mr. Speaker, that the Democratic majority passed back
in February of 2007 that had in it this Section 526. It basically said
this, my colleagues--and I hope that you all will listen very carefully
to this because it's so crucial. Section 526 will not allow, it
prohibits any agency of the Federal Government, our Federal Government,
including our Department of Defense and including NASA, from utilizing
any fuel source other than conventional fuel if it results in one
nanogram increase in carbon footprint.
{time} 2000
I am not talking about tonnage of CO2. I am talking about
any increase. So what my good friend from Michigan was talking about in
regard to shale, s-h-a-l-e, shale is a solid product. It is a granular
product. And we have, as Fred Upton pointed out, Mr. Speaker, an
abundance of that product out in the West. There are about five States.
And I think Mr. Upton said that it is estimated that you can get
something like one and a half trillion, with a T, one and a half
trillion barrels of petroleum from that source.
But this section 526 that the Democratic majority put in their ``no
energy bill'' back in February of 2007 means that we can't utilize
that. We can't get that source increase of supply so that the prices
will go down. And the reason I am so outraged about that, Mr. Speaker,
is that tomorrow, on the floor, we will be doing the rule on the NASA
reauthorization bill of 2008, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. Well their price of fuel in the last 5 years, my
colleagues, has gone up 400 percent from something like $4.5 million to
$18.3 million. That is what NASA is having to pay on an annual basis
for jet fuel.
And yet they are the very agency of the Federal Government that is
doing research. A lot of the research that NASA has done, we all know,
we have utilized in the private sector. There are many things. I can
name several. But they are doing research on shale. They are doing
research on tar sands. They are doing research on coal to liquid and
carbon sequestration and sharing that information with the Department
of Defense and the Department of the Air Force, which could save us a
tremendous amount of money.
So I yield back to my colleague for a colloquy on this issue because
it is so important and so timely.
Mr. UPTON. Well the gentleman is exactly correct. And let me just say
one quick thing. When you look at oil shale and you look at tar sands,
it takes a little bit of energy to then derive that oil from those
bodies, the shale, the tar or the sand. Basically you have to heat it
up. And for tar sands, the Canadians are producing literally one
million barrels a day up in Alberta. And they are going to make that
whether we are the buyer or not. To use the analogy of the Clampetts,
and maybe they still have that technique back in Oklahoma and Texas, I
see some of my colleagues, and I'll be careful, but the Clampetts, they
put that pipe down and the oil came up. And it didn't take any energy
to get it out of the ground.
Well it is different today. That easy energy is gone for the most
part. So we have to do a lot of things. We have to inject carbon to
bring it up. But in essence in Canada they have to have the heat to
separate the oil from the sand, and then you have to refine it. And
that takes a little bit more energy than the Clampetts, just to use
that analogy.
Mr. GINGREY. This is just the kind of research, and the colleague is
absolutely right, we all remember the movie, most of us have seen the
movie.
Mr. UPTON. I am looking at the pages. I don't know if they know about
the Clampetts or not. Do you know about the Clampetts? Have you heard?
Mr. WALBERG. As long as my colleagues don't yield and sing them the
theme song.
Mr. UPTON. I am glad I didn't date myself.
Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming your time. I am sure the pages don't remember
the movie ``Giant,'' but we all do, and how that oil just came bubbling
up out of the ground. I believe that was in Texas. It may have been
Oklahoma.
In any regard, what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) is saying
is that these tar sands and shale, shale has to be mined. And then you
have to go through a process, as he is saying, and you have to extract.
And it is a little bit more difficult.
Again, we're about to reauthorize NASA in the next day or two. They
are doing research on that very process now where they can get that
petroleum, and I said to you 1.5 trillion barrels probably from the
shale in our West, western part of the United States, and Mr. Upton
pointed out that these tar sands in Canada, it is estimated that it is
probably another 1.5 trillion barrels of petroleum that we can get from
that. And they are producing it in Canada. And they are selling it to
somebody. And yet we can't utilize it. It absolutely makes no sense. As
my colleague from Georgia said earlier, I think he used the word
``idiotic,'' ``insanity'' or ``crazy.'' He is right on all three
points. But I will yield back to my colleague.
Mr. UPTON. If the gentleman would yield just briefly. The Canadians
have said that they are going to increase production up in Alberta.
They want to go to four to five million barrels a day. And they have
the buyers. Let's face it. Wouldn't we rather have that pipeline come
down to the Midwest and have us refine it here and be able to sell a
cheaper product to Americans than have it come from overseas some place
else? And if we're not going to buy it from them, and the Canadians
told me this, they are going to build a pipeline out to the Pacific.
They are going to put it on one of those big freighters. They're going
to spend a lot of carbon going up into the air shipping it to someplace
else, China, Korea, Japan or some place else. Let's have it come here.
We'll actually save energy. We will help pollution wise in terms of
reducing greenhouse gases from where it otherwise would have gone. And
our consumers will be a lot better off.
And with that, I yield now to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WALBERG. If my colleague could yield just a moment here on one
point that ties into that. We heard yesterday from one of our Senate
colleagues from a northern State, a northeastern State, say that what
we ought to do is buy one million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. That
would reduce the cost at the pump by about 50 cents. Well 50 cents
right now would be great. But why not take that from ANWR? We can get
one million barrels per day from ANWR right now, we are told, at least
that, if we are to take it from there, and not have to buy it from any
other foreign country, have it shipped to us from any other foreign
country, and use it exactly like you said down here to make this great
country run on its own fuel as opposed to buying from someplace else.
Mr. GINGREY. If my colleague from Michigan will yield, the whole
issue here is when the Democrats passed this Energy Independence and
Security Act some 17 months ago, the price of regular gasoline, as all
my colleagues know, was about $2.60 a gallon. Now, if Speaker Pelosi,
at that particular time, or Leader Hoyer felt that the price of
gasoline at the pump was going to drop $1.50, then maybe I could
understand their emphasis on protecting the environment from any iota
increase in carbon dioxide footprint or greenhouse gases.
But what has happened with their ``no energy plan,'' unfortunately
the
[[Page 12051]]
price of gasoline has gone up about $1.55 a gallon, and here we are
looking at $4, $4 and a nickel now, and so we have to ask ourselves,
what is the crisis? Is the crisis global warming? Or is the crisis
bankruptcy of our country because of the price of energy? And people
can't afford to buy gasoline. They can't afford to buy food. We are
losing jobs to other countries. I think it is time to say to our
majority party, for goodness' sakes, at least make in order the Gingrey
amendment which would allow the administrator of NASA to have a waiver
of section 526 and utilize some of these sources that Mr. Upton and Mr.
Broun and others are talking about, getting that shale oil product from
Canada. It just flows right down the pipeline. It is an easy flow, easy
obtaining it. There is not a lot of hard work. It is the same thing
with tar sands. And let NASA continue to do their research. Share it
with the Department of Defense.
And I will make this one point to the gentleman from Michigan who is
controlling the time, and then I will yield back so that others can
weigh in, but do you know that in the year 2008 the Department of
Defense is going to spend an additional, a delta, of $9 billion on fuel
because of price of gasoline right now? And I yield back.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank you for that and the points you make so clear.
I would like to yield back for a moment to my good friend from
Georgia, since we have two Michiganders here and two Georgians now
speaking, Dr. Paul Broun, for some additional comments, I know you have
a point to make, before I go on to my good friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, my friend, Mr. Walberg. I just
wanted to ask Mr. Upton something before he left. You were mentioning
that it takes some energy to produce this energy. And the people on the
other side, the leadership on the other side has been promoting these
alternative sources of fuel. Ethanol has been one. And you are on the
Energy Committee I think, isn't that correct?
Mr. UPTON. Yes. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well tell me if it is true. I understand that
to produce ethanol today, particularly corn-based ethanol, it actually
takes more energy to produce that corn-based ethanol than the ethanol
itself produces. Is that correct?
Mr. UPTON. Well, there have been different studies showing different
things in terms of what to count. One of the bills that I have
cosponsored, it is actually a bipartisan bill, is to look at increasing
ethanol from nonfood source, or noncorn, and there are a couple of
bills to do that using switch grass and a number of different things.
We are not quite there in the technology, but we are not too far away,
within a couple of years. And I think we ought to be investing more on
that type of technology so that we can take some of the pressure off
these rising food prices. I represent Kellogg's as well, as does the
gentleman in the well, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I am talking about corn-based ethanol because I
am excited about switch grass and other sources of potential, and I
believe we need to investigate any source of energy anywhere.
Mr. UPTON. Now that the price of oil has gotten up to $135 a barrel,
there is a lot of things that 1 month ago weren't economical to do. And
that is why by putting more alternative fuels in the mix, we can have
some downward pressure on the overall price of gasoline. And obviously
ethanol is part of that mix, whether it be corn-based or nonfood items,
and we need to explore those and see what we can do to put downward
pressure on the overall price of gasoline.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I agree with that totally. The other thing is
propane is a byproduct of the refinery process of gasoline as well as
natural gas. And we already know that propane is an environmentally
protective agent. And we have had, in the past, fleets of cars fueled
by propane. I know at my hunting camp down in rural southwest Georgia,
I have fueled my house down there in my hunting camp with propane. And
I know a lot of people heat their homes with it. And most propane, from
what I understand, is produced here in America and sold here in
America.
So tapping into our oil sources would give us an additional source of
energy that we are not getting today if my understanding is correct,
and so we can further protect the environment by having more propane
utilized in our own energy, as well as stop the production of carbon in
the atmosphere that the environmentalists are so bent that it is
causing global warming. And I am not so certain about that. I don't
really think that is so.
Mr. UPTON. The gentleman makes a very good point. And I know there
are other Members waiting patiently to speak. So I am going yield
whatever time I have left to the gentleman from the great State of
Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Congressman Broun, you point out the fact that we have
all sorts of energy sources. And we ought to be using them and
developing them.
I want to move to a good friend, colleague and leader in our
conference from Oklahoma. Congressman Cole, I appreciate your joining
us tonight. I know you have taken some ribbing already about Oklahoma.
I know you can handle it, but certainly I know our people would like to
hear what you have to say about this issue.
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I thank my good friend from Michigan for
yielding. And I thank him even more for conducting what is an important
and enlightening educational experience for the people of our country
about the reality of high fuel prices and what is behind it. You do
take a little ribbing occasionally if you're from Oklahoma. But we
think that is generally jealousy, except from our friends from Texas,
who have a very similar view of the world to us.
But let me talk a little if I can about what the current state of
play is in energy prices. Today as you have had up on your sign, the
national average price for a gallon of gasoline is $4.04. That is
something I never thought I would live to see, and frankly, no American
should have ever lived to see. You can now buy a barrel of light sweet
crude for July delivery at $131.31, a nice round number, nice even
alliterative number. Currently in my State, Oklahoma's price at the
pump, and we are producers, in some ways we will we feel it even worse
because we have been producing for over 100 years much more than we
consume and exporting it to the rest of the country. And we are
delighted to do that. But it is pretty tough when people in Oklahoma, a
producing State that sacrificed, that frankly are delighted to have
exploration and production, but they are paying $3.83 a gallon.
In January of 2007 when this majority, this Democrat majority took
office, the price per gallon was $2.08 a gallon. That is a rise of
$1.75, an increase of over 80 percent.
{time} 2015
The country as a whole has experienced very much the same thing. The
average price since the Democratic majority has come into power has
gone up $1.67, an increase of 71 percent.
Now, that is not what our friends on the other side of the aisle
expected to happen at all. As a matter of fact, let me read you a few
quotes of what they told America as they came into the majority our
energy future would be.
Our distinguished Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, said on April 18, 2006,
``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down the skyrocketing
gas prices.'' She said a few days later, ``The Democrats have a plan to
lower gas prices.''
Our distinguished Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said on the 4th of
April, 2005, ``Democrats believe that we can do more for the American
people who are struggling to deal with high gas prices.'' I would love
to ``struggle'' to pay $2.08 a gallon. It would be a nice fight to
have.
Our good friend and distinguished whip of the majority party, Jim
Clyburn, said, ``House Democrats have a plan to help curb rising
prices.'' That is on the 26th of July, 2006. If this is the plan, we
want them to go back to the drawing board and reconsider where they are
at.
[[Page 12052]]
Four times since they have taken the majority they have voted to
increase energy taxes; to increase energy taxes. Now, even people that
don't like the energy industry can usually say, well, gosh, if you
increase the tax, won't they pass that along to us in the price? It is
an incredible record.
Now, every single energy bill the majority wants to reach the floor
has reached the floor. Most of them have passed this body. Some of them
have gone all the way to the President and been signed. As I recall, I
don't remember anybody who actually vetoed any energy legislation that
has actually reached the President's desk. So what we are seeing really
is the product of the majority's legislative agenda.
What haven't they let come to the floor? What commonsense solutions
that most Americans support haven't come to the floor? I am just going
to list a few of them, because, as my colleague knows, there are many
of them.
Our colleague from Texas, Mac Thornberry, has a wonderful bill, the
No More Excuses Energy Act, H.R. 3089, that literally covers the gambit
of things we ought to be doing. Not just oil and gas, but nuclear,
solar and wind. It incentivizes production. That is the lesson that our
friends on the other side have forgotten, that supply is really
important to cost. They simply seem to have no conception of that.
There is a wonderful bill by Mr. Pitts of Pennsylvania, H.R. 2279,
that will expedite the construction of new refining capacity on closed
military installations in the United States. These are installations
that have been set aside. They are safe. They are secure. Why in the
world wouldn't we want to refine the product? If we have to import it,
we at least ought to get the value-added portion of refining it. It is
a crime that we should ever import a refined product.
Our good friend Mr. Blunt, H.R. 2493, has legislation that removes
the fuel blend requirements and government mandates that contribute to
unaffordable gas prices. We shouldn't have dozens and dozens of blends
of gasoline. A few is enough.
Our good friend Mrs. Myrick has H.R. 6108, Outer Continental Shelf
Exploration, which grants coastal states the authority to grant
exploration up to 100 miles from their coastlines and allows States to
share in that revenue. A commonsense solution.
None of this legislation, and dozens more, have been allowed to come
to the floor. My friends on the other side love to blame Republicans,
President Bush and the energy industry for these kinds of problems.
I just want to conclude quickly with a story. I do represent a
district that is one of the top 20 energy producers in the United
States, so we are more than doing our part. I convened about a year
ago, actually before this extraordinary rise in prices, a group of
independent energy people that have spent a lifetime trying to provide
energy to this country.
I asked them, ``Give me your suggestions. What can we do to increase
the supply and stabilize and hopefully lower the price of a gallon of
gasoline or heating fuel or electricity?'' They thought, and they had a
lot of great solutions.
They said, ``Let's go drill in ANWR, in Alaska. That would be a
wonderful thing.'' By the way, my good friend Mr. Young has a superb
piece of legislation on that, H.R. 6107, that would actually allow us
to drill there and invest some of the severance revenue in alternative
energy supplies so we could both meet an immediate need and start
looking for alternatives.
But they suggested that. I said, ``Well, you know, I am for that. I
voted for that. The Republican majority passed it four times in the
House and couldn't get it through the Senate because of Democratic
obstruction, so we probably can't get it done.''
Then they said, ``Let's do more exploration and production offshore.
We have seen Katrina. That has worked well in terms of no spillage. We
know we had 25 percent of our supply in the Gulf of Mexico. We could do
more.'' I said, ``Well, I am for that, but we can't do that either.''
Then they asked about additional refining capacity, and they asked
about expedited permitting on non-park Federal lands. They just went
through a litany of things. Alternative energy. Each one I would say
yes, I am for that, but we can't get that through, particularly a
Democratic Congress.
Finally at the end of this in frustration, one of my good friends
said, ``Well, why don't you go back and ask those other Members of
Congress who are opposing these measures just how rich they want
foreign countries to be? Just how much they want to pay the people
overseas that we are importing this petroleum from, or this gas, when
we could actually do the production here? Because they are exporting
thousands of jobs, billions of dollars, and they are jeopardizing our
security.''
Then the guy added in fairness, he said, ``By the way, we are all
here giving you suggestions about how to lower the price of the product
that we produce.''
We have had a shameful exercise, in my opinion, in the last several
days, particularly on the Senate side, where people that work to solve
America's energy problems are brought in and interrogated as if they
are the source of the problems, and the only frankly justification for
that is the high prices. But when those people respond, they say, ``If
you would just do the things we have asked you to do year after year
after year, we could solve this problem.''
So I am sorry I went on. You have been very generous with your time,
and I appreciate that very much. But it is a frustrating problem when
the solutions are sitting here waiting to be acted upon by this House
and none of them are being dealt with at all.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank you for sharing that history. It is a good point
to know what has been attempted and what hasn't been accomplished. But
it would also give the opportunity for our constituents to voice their
concerns now with factual information to say there are things you can
do. Now get it done.
In the time remaining, I would like to turn a portion of that over to
my good friend and colleague from Texas, bringing the southern States
in now, Congressman Randy Neugebauer.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, I thank the gentleman from Michigan. I also
want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, because he makes a very good
point. And when he says we are importing thousands of dollars, actually
it is billions of dollars. Every day America gets up and writes a check
for $1 billion-plus to buy enough energy to run this country for 1 day.
What does that mean? That means that it takes $365 billion currently
for America to buy enough energy just to run our country on an annual
basis, $1 billion every day. And do you know what? Unfortunately, some
of that money is going to some folks that aren't all that friendly to
the American people. One of those people is Hugo Chavez.
I want to read you what Hugo Chavez thinks about America. He said,
``What we do regarding the imperialist power of the United States, we
have no choice but to unite. We use oil in our war against neo-
liberalism.'' He also said, ``We have invaded the United States, but
with our oil.''
So every day as the American people go to the pumps all across
America, what I want them to visualize is that every day we write Hugo
Chavez, who calls us imperialists, a $170 million check. That is $62
billion a year. What would happen if we could invest $1 billion a day
in America developing America's energy resources, creating jobs for
Americans? Think about it. Instead of writing Hugo Chavez a check for
$172 million, that we write America a check for $172 million?
I think of the people I know in the 19th Congressional District of
Texas, which is a big district, 29,000 square miles, 27 counties,
teachers having to drive 60, 70 miles a day to go and teach our young
people, that now are looking at doubling the cost of making that
commute across the district.
I think about the man last night that I was talking to in my
district. He said, ``Congressman,'' he said, ``I have to drive three
times a week 30 miles each way to get dialysis so that I can be
[[Page 12053]]
treated for diabetes.'' He said, ``Congressman, I am down to the point
now of having to choose whether I can afford dialysis, afford gasoline,
or afford food.''
Madam Speaker, it is time to say yes. We have heard you say no; no to
new drilling, no to building additional power plants in this country;
no to new refineries. America is wanting you to say yes, because
America is tired of writing checks to Hugo Chavez for $160 million
every day.
I thank my friend from Michigan tonight for hosting this hour. I hope
that somehow the American people realize that there is a willingness on
behalf of many Members of Congress to say yes and to move forward and
to do something proactive, instead of doing something that is called
nothing.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank my good friend and colleague from Texas for
ending it on a point that is poignant, that reminds us what this really
costs. I wish we could go on and on tonight to bring out more points
like this. This is critical. It is a security issue, as well as a point
of life, and you made it very clear. I don't want to write a check for
$170 million to Hugo Chavez. Let's get it done.
____________________
RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges
of the House and offer the impeachment resolution noticed last evening.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). The Clerk will report the
resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1258
Resolved, That President George W. Bush be impeached for
high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles
of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name
of itself and of the people of the United States of America,
in maintenance and support of its impeachment against
President George W. Bush for high crimes and misdemeanors.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following
abuses of power.
ARTICLE I.--CREATING A SECRET PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN TO MANUFACTURE A
FALSE CASE FOR WAR AGAINST IRAQ
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, illegally spent public dollars on a secret
propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war
against Iraq.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has engaged in a years-long
secret domestic propaganda campaign to promote the invasion
and occupation of Iraq. This secret program was defended by
the White House Press Secretary following its exposure. This
program follows the pattern of crimes detailed in Article I,
II, IV and VIII.. The mission of this program placed it
within the field controlled by the White House Iraq Group
(WHIG), a White House task-force formed in August 2002 to
market an invasion of Iraq to the American people. The group
included Karl Rove, I. Lewis Libby, Condoleezza Rice, Karen
Hughes, Mary Matalin, Stephen Hadley, Nicholas E. Calio, and
James R. Wilkinson.
The WHIG produced white papers detailing so-called
intelligence of Iraq's nuclear threat that later proved to be
false. This supposed intelligence included the claim that
Iraq had sought uranium from Niger as well as the claim that
the high strength aluminum tubes Iraq purchased from China
were to be used for the sole purpose of building centrifuges
to enrich uranium. Unlike the National Intelligence Estimate
of 2002, the WHIG's white papers provided ``gripping images
and stories'' and used ``literary license'' with
intelligence. The WHIG's white papers were written at the
same time and by the same people as speeches and talking
points prepared for President Bush and some of his top
officials.
The WHIG also organized a media blitz in which, between
September 7-8, 2002, President Bush and his top advisers
appeared on numerous interviews and all provided similarly
gripping images about the possibility of nuclear attack by
Iraq. The timing was no coincidence, as Andrew Card explained
in an interview regarding waiting until after Labor Day to
try to sell the American people on military action against
Iraq, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce
new products in August.''
September 7-8, 2002:
NBC's ``Meet the Press: Vice President Cheney accused
Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over
the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and
biological arms.
CNN: Then-National Security Adviser Rice said, regarding
the likelihood of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon, ``We don't
want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.''
CBS: President Bush declared that Saddam was ``six months
away from developing a weapon,'' and cited satellite photos
of construction in Iraq where weapons inspectors once visited
as evidence that Saddam was trying to develop nuclear arms.
The Pentagon military analyst propaganda program was
revealed in an April 20, 2002, New York Times article. The
program illegally involved ``covert attempts to mold opinion
through the undisclosed use of third parties.'' Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld recruited 75 retired military
officers and gave them talking points to deliver on Fox, CNN,
ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, and according to the New York Times
report, which has not been disputed by the Pentagon or the
White House, ``Participants were instructed not to quote
their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts
with the Pentagon.''
According to the Pentagon's own internal documents, the
military analysts were considered ``message force
multipliers'' or ``surrogates'' who would deliver
administration ``themes and messages'' to millions of
Americans ``in the form of their own opinions.'' In fact,
they did deliver the themes and the messages but did not
reveal that the Pentagon had provided them with their talking
points. Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and Fox
News military analyst described this as follows: ``It was
them saying, `We need to stick our hands up your back and
move your mouth for you.'''
Congress has restricted annual appropriations bills since
1951 with this language: ``No part of any appropriation
contained in this or any other Act shall be used for
publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not
heretofore authorized by the Congress.''
A March 21, 2005, report by the Congressional Research
Service states that ``publicity or propaganda'' is defined by
the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to mean
either (1) self-aggrandizement by public officials, (2)
purely partisan activity, or (3) ``covert propaganda.''
These concerns about ``covert propaganda'' were also the
basis for the GAO's standard for determining when government-
funded video news releases are illegal:
``The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source
of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by
encouraging the viewing audience to believe that the
broadcasting news organization developed the information. The
prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be
indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public.
When the television viewing public does not know that the
stories they watched on television news programs about the
government were in fact prepared by the government, the
stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual--the
essential fact of attribution is missing.''
The White House's own Office of Legal Council stated in a
memorandum written in 2005 following the controversy over the
Armstrong Williams scandal:
``Over the years, GAO has interpreted `publicity or
propaganda' restrictions to preclude use of appropriated
funds for, among other things, so-called `covert propaganda.'
. . . Consistent with that view, the OLC determined in 1988
that a statutory prohibition on using appropriated funds for
`publicity or propaganda' precluded undisclosed agency
funding of advocacy by third-party groups. We stated that
`covert attempts to mold opinion through the undisclosed use
of third parties' would run afoul of restrictions on using
appropriated funds for `propaganda.' ''
Asked about the Pentagon's propaganda program at White
House press briefing in April 2008, White House Press
Secretary Dana Perino defended it, not by arguing that it was
legal but by suggesting that it ``should'' be: ``Look, I
didn't know look, I think that you guys should take a step
back and look at this look, DOD has made a decision, they've
decided to stop this program. But I would say that one of the
things that we try to do in the administration is get
information out to a variety of people so that everybody else
can call them and ask their opinion about something. And I
don't think that that should be against the law. And I think
that it's absolutely appropriate to provide information to
people who are seeking it and are going to be providing their
opinions on it. It doesn't necessarily mean that
[[Page 12054]]
all of those military analysts ever agreed with the
administration. I think you can go back and look and think
that a lot of their analysis was pretty tough on the
administration. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't talk to
people.''
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article II.--FALSELY, SYSTEMATICALLY, AND WITH CRIMINAL INTENT
CONFLATING THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WITH MISREPRESENTATION OF
IRAQ AS AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT AS PART OF A FRAUDULENT
JUSTIFICATION FOR A WAR OF AGGRESSION.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to
deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into
believing that there was and is a connection between Iraq and
Saddam Hussein on the one hand, and the attacks of September
11, 2001 and al Qaeda, on the other hand, so as to falsely
justify the use of the United States Armed Forces against the
nation of Iraq in a manner that is damaging to the national
security interests of the United States, as well as to
fraudulently obtain and maintain congressional authorization
and funding for the use of such military force against Iraq,
thereby interfering with and obstructing Congress's lawful
functions of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.
The means used to implement this deception were and
continue to be, first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning
the manipulation of intelligence analysis by those under his
direction and control, including the Vice President and the
Vice President's agents, and second, personally making, or
causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-
placed subordinates, including the President's Chief of
Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House
spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the
National Security Advisor, and their deputies and
spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the
citizens of the United States and Congress regarding an
alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and Iraq, on the
one hand, and the September 11th attacks and al Qaeda, on the
other hand, that were half-true, literally true but
misleading, and/or made without a reasonable basis and with
reckless indifference to their truth, as well as omitting to
state facts necessary to present an accurate picture of the
truth as follows:
(A) On or about September 12, 2001, former terrorism
advisor Richard Clarke personally informed the President that
neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq was responsible for the
September 11th attacks. On September 18, Clarke submitted to
the President's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice a
memo he had written in response to George W. Bush's specific
request that stated: (1) the case for linking Hussein to the
September 11th attacks was weak; (2) only anecdotal evidence
linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (3) Osama Bin Laden resented the
secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (4) there was no confirmed
reporting of Saddam Hussein cooperating with Bin Laden on
unconventional weapons.
(B) Ten days after the September 11th attacks the President
received a President's Daily Briefing which indicated that
the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking
Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there
was ``scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant
collaborative ties with Al Qaeda.''
(C) In Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary No. 044-02,
issued in February 2002, the United States Defense
Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility
of a Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda conspiracy: ``Saddam's regime is
intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary
movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide
assistance to a group it cannot control.''
(D) The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate gave a
``Low Confidence'' rating to the notion of whether ``in
desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons
with Al Qaeda.'' The CIA never informed the President that
there was an operational relationship between Al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein; on the contrary, its most ``aggressive''
analysis contained in Iraq and al-Qaeda-Interpreting a
``Murky Relationship'' dated June 21, 2002 was that Iraq had
had ``sporadic, wary contacts with al Qaeda since the mid-
1990s rather than a relationship with al Qaeda that has
developed over time.''
(E) Notwithstanding his knowledge that neither Saddam
Hussein nor Iraq was in any way connected to the September
11th attacks, the President allowed and authorized those
acting under his direction and control, including Vice
President Richard B. Cheney and Lewis Libby, who reported
directly to both the President and the Vice President, and
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, among others, to
pressure intelligence analysts to alter their assessments and
to create special units outside of, and unknown to, the
intelligence community in order to secretly obtain unreliable
information, to manufacture intelligence or reinterpret raw
data in ways that would further the Bush administration's
goal of fraudulently establishing a relationship not only
between Iraq and al Qaeda, but between Iraq and the attacks
of September 11th.
(F) Further, despite his full awareness that Iraq and
Saddam Hussein had no relationship to the September 11th
attacks, the President, and those acting under his direction
and control have, since at least 2002 and continuing to the
present, repeatedly issued public statements deliberately
worded to mislead, words calculated in their implication to
bring unrelated actors and circumstances into an artificially
contrived reality thereby facilitating the systematic
deception of Congress and the American people. Thus the
public and some members of Congress, came to believe,
falsely, that there was a connection between Iraq and the
attacks of 9/11. This was accomplished through well-
publicized statements by the Bush Administration which
contrived to continually tie Iraq and 9/11 in the same
statements of grave concern without making an explicit
charge:
(1) ``[If] Iraq regimes [sic] continues to defy us, and the
world, we will move deliberately, yet decisively, to hold
Iraq to account . . . It's a new world we're in. We used to
think two oceans could separate us from an enemy. On that
tragic day, September the 11th, 2001, we found out that's not
the case. We found out this great land of liberty and of
freedom and of justice is vulnerable. And therefore we must
do everything we can--everything we can--to secure the
homeland, to make us safe.'' Speech of President Bush in Iowa
on September 16, 2002.
(2) ``With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining
and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to
confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime
were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the
attacks of September 11th would be a prelude to far greater
horrors.'' March 6, 2003, Statement of President Bush in
National Press Conference.
(3) ``The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror
that began on September the 11, 2001--and still goes on. That
terrible morning, 19 evil men--the shock troops of a hateful
ideology--gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of
their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one
terrorist, that September the 11th would be the `beginning of
the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into
killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that
they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our
retreat from the world. They have failed.'' May 1, 2003,
Speech of President Bush on U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.
(4) ``Now we're in a new and unprecedented war against
violent Islamic extremists. This is an ideological conflict
we face against murderers and killers who try to impose their
will. These are the people that attacked us on September the
11th and killed nearly 3,000 people. The stakes are high, and
once again, we have had to change our strategic thinking. The
major battleground in this war is Iraq.'' June 28, 2007,
Speech of President Bush at the Naval War College in Newport,
Rhode Island.
(G) Notwithstanding his knowledge that there was no
credible evidence of a working relationship between Saddam
Hussein and Al Qaeda and that the intelligence community had
specifically assessed that there was no such operational
relationship, the President, both personally and through his
subordinates and agents, has repeatedly falsely represented,
both explicitly and implicitly, and through the misleading
use of selectively-chosen facts, to the citizens of the
United States and to the Congress that there was and is such
an ongoing operational relationship, to wit:
(1) ``We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level
contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who
fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior
al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad
this year, and who has been associated with planning for
chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has
trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and
deadly gases.'' September 28, 2002, Weekly Radio Address of
President Bush to the Nation.
(2) ``[W]e need to think about Saddam Hussein using al
Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints
behind.'' October 14, 2002, Remarks by President Bush in
Michigan.
(3) ``We know he's got ties with al Qaeda.'' November 1,
2002, Speech of President Bush in New Hampshire.
(4) ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret
communications, and statements by
[[Page 12055]]
people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and
protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly,
and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden
weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.''
January 28, 2003, President Bush's State of the Union
Address.
(5) ``[W]hat I want to bring to your attention today is the
potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al
Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic
terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq
today harbors a deadly terrorist network . . .'' February 5,
2003, Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell to the
United Nations.
(6) ``The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror
that began on September the 11, 2001--and still goes on. . .
. [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al
Qaeda.'' May 1, 2003, Speech of President Bush on U.S.S.
Abraham Lincoln.
(H) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on
Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government
Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information,
which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:
(1) ``Statements and implications by the President and
Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qaeda had a
partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qaeda with weapons
training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.''
(2) ``The Intelligence Community did not confirm that
Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in
2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.''
Through his participation and instance in the breathtaking
scope of this deception, the President has used the highest
office of trust to wage of campaign of deception of such
sophistication as to deliberately subvert the national
security interests of the United States. His dishonesty set
the stage for the loss of more than 4000 United States
service members; injuries to tens of thousands of soldiers,
the loss of more than 1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since
the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $527
billion in war costs which has increased our Federal debt and
the ultimate expenditure of three to five trillion dollars
for all costs covering the war; the loss of military
readiness within the United States Armed Services due to
overextension, the lack of training and lack of equipment;
the loss of United States credibility in world affairs; and
the decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of
Iraq.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article III.--MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO
BELIEVE IRAQ POSSESSED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, SO AS TO
MANUFACTURE A FALSE CASE FOR WAR
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, executed instead a calculated and wide-ranging
strategy to deceive the citizens and Congress of the United
States into believing that the nation of Iraq possessed
weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the use of
the United States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in
a manner damaging to our national security interests, thereby
interfering with and obstructing Congress's lawful functions
of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.
The means used to implement this deception were and
continue to be personally making, or causing, authorizing and
allowing to be made through highly-placed subordinates,
including the President's Chief of Staff, the White House
Press Secretary and other White House spokespersons, the
Secretaries of State and Defense, the National Security
Advisor, and their deputies and spokespersons, false and
fraudulent representations to the citizens of the United
States and Congress regarding Iraq's alleged possession of
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that were half-true,
literally true but misleading, and/or made without a
reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their
truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to
present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:
(A) Long before the March 19, 2003 invasion of Iraq, a
wealth of intelligence informed the President and those under
his direction and control that Iraq's stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons had been destroyed well before 1998
and that there was little, if any, credible intelligence that
showed otherwise. As reported in the Washington Post in March
of 2003, in 1995, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law Hussein Kamel
had informed U.S. and British intelligence officers that
``all weapons--biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were
destroyed.'' In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence
Agency issued a report that concluded: ``A substantial amount
of Iraq's chemical warfare agents, precursors, munitions and
production equipment were destroyed between 1991 and 1998 as
a result of Operation Desert Storm and UNSCOM actions . . .
[T]here is no reliable information on whether Iraq is
producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or whether Iraq
has--or will--establish its chemical warfare agent production
facilities.'' Notwithstanding the absence of evidence proving
that such stockpiles existed and in direct contradiction to
substantial evidence that showed they did not exist, the
President and his subordinates and agents made numerous false
representations claiming with certainty that Iraq possessed
chemical and biological weapons that it was developing to use
to attack the United States, to wit:
(1) ``[T]he notion of a Saddam Hussein with his great oil
wealth, with his inventory that he already has of biological
and chemical weapons . . . is, I think, a frightening
proposition for anybody who thinks about it.'' Statement of
Vice President Cheney on CBS's Face the Nation, March 24,
2002.
(2) ``In defiance of the United Nations, Iraq has
stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding
the facilities used to make more of those weapons.'' Speech
of President Bush, October 5, 2002.
(3) ``All the world has now seen the footage of an Iraqi
Mirage aircraft with a fuel tank modified to spray biological
agents over wide areas. Iraq has developed spray devices that
could be used on unmanned aerial vehicles with ranges far
beyond what is permitted by the Security Council. A UAV
launched from a vessel off the American coast could reach
hundreds of miles inland.'' Statement by President Bush from
the White House, February 6, 2003.
(B) Despite overwhelming intelligence in the form of
statements and reports filed by and on behalf of the CIA, the
State Department and the IAEA, among others, which indicated
that the claim was untrue, the President, and those under his
direction and control, made numerous representations claiming
and implying through misleading language that Iraq was
attempting to purchase uranium from Niger in order to falsely
buttress its argument that Iraq was reconstituting its
nuclear weapons program, including:
(1) ``The regime has the scientists and facilities to build
nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do
so.'' Statement of President Bush from White House, October
2, 2002.
(2) ``The [Iraqi] report also failed to deal with issues
which have arisen since 1998, including: . . . attempts to
acquire uranium and the means to enrich it.'' Letter from
President Bush to Vice President Cheney and the Senate,
January 20, 2003.
(3) ``The British Government has learned that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium
from Africa.'' President Bush Delivers State of the Union
Address, January 28, 2003.
(C) Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of reports by
nuclear weapons experts from the Energy, the Defense and
State Departments, as well from outside and international
agencies which assessed that aluminum tubes the Iraqis were
purchasing were not suitable for nuclear centrifuge use and
were, on the contrary, identical to ones used in rockets
already being manufactured by the Iraqis, the President, and
those under his direction and control, persisted in making
numerous false and fraudulent representations implying and
stating explicitly that the Iraqis were purchasing the tubes
for use in a nuclear weapons program, to wit:
(1) ``We do know that there have been shipments going . . .
into Iraq . . . of aluminum tubes that really are only suited
to--high-quality aluminum tools [sic] that are only really
suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.''
Statement of then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, September 8, 2002.
(2) ``Our intelligence sources tell us that he has
attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable
for nuclear weapons production.'' President Bush's State of
the Union Address, January 28, 2003.
(3) ``[H]e has made repeated covert attempts to acquire
high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different
countries, even after inspections resumed. . . . By now, just
about everyone has heard of these tubes and we all know that
there are differences of opinion. There is controversy about
what these tubes are for. Most U.S. experts think they are
intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich
uranium.'' Speech of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell
to the United Nations, February 5, 2003.
(D) The President, both personally and acting through those
under his direction and control, suppressed material
information, selectively declassified information for the
improper purposes of retaliating against a whistleblower and
presenting a misleading picture of the alleged threat from
Iraq, facilitated the exposure of the identity of a covert
CIA operative and thereafter not only
[[Page 12056]]
failed to investigate the improper leaks of classified
information from within his administration, but also failed
to cooperate with an investigation into possible federal
violations resulting from this activity and, finally,
entirely undermined the prosecution by commuting the sentence
of Lewis Libby citing false and insubstantial grounds, all in
an effort to prevent Congress and the citizens of the United
States from discovering the fraudulent nature of the
President's claimed justifications for the invasion of Iraq.
(E) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on
Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government
Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information,
which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:
(1) ``Statements by the President and Vice President prior
to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding
Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities
did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as
to whether such production was ongoing.''
(2) ``The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi
government operated underground WMD facilities that were not
vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were
underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by
available intelligence information.''
(3) Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay
Rockefeller concluded: ``In making the case for war, the
Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when
in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-
existent. As a result, the American people were led to
believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than
actually existed.''
The President has subverted the national security interests
of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of
more than 4000 United States service members and the injury
to tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers; the loss of more than
1,000,000 innocent Iraqi citizens since the United States
invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs
which has increased our Federal debt with a long term
financial cost of between three and five trillion dollars;
the loss of military readiness within the United States Armed
Services due to overextension, the lack of training and lack
of equipment; the loss of United States credibility in world
affairs; and the decades of likely blowback created by the
invasion of Iraq.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article IV.--MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO
BELIEVE IRAQ POSED AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to
deceive the citizens and Congress of the United States into
believing that the nation of Iraq posed an imminent threat to
the United States in order to justify the use of the United
States Armed Forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner
damaging to our national security interests, thereby
interfering with and obstructing Congress's lawful functions
of overseeing foreign affairs and declaring war.
The means used to implement this deception were and
continue to be, first, allowing, authorizing and sanctioning
the manipulation of intelligence analysis by those under his
direction and control, including the Vice President and the
Vice President's agents, and second, personally making, or
causing, authorizing and allowing to be made through highly-
placed subordinates, including the President's Chief of
Staff, the White House Press Secretary and other White House
spokespersons, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the
National Security Advisor, and their deputies and
spokespersons, false and fraudulent representations to the
citizens of the United States and Congress regarding an
alleged urgent threat posed by Iraq, statements that were
half-true, literally true but misleading, and/or made without
a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their
truth, as well as omitting to state facts necessary to
present an accurate picture of the truth as follows:
(A) Notwithstanding the complete absence of intelligence
analysis to support a claim that Iraq posed an imminent or
urgent threat to the United States and the intelligence
community's assessment that Iraq was in fact not likely to
attack the United States unless it was itself attacked,
President Bush, both personally and through his agents and
subordinates, made, allowed and caused to be made repeated
false representations to the citizens and Congress of the
United States implying and explicitly stating that such a
dire threat existed, including the following:
(1) ``States such as these [Iraq, Iran and North Korea] and
their terrorist allies constitute an axis of evil, arming to
threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass
destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger.
They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the
means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or
attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these
cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.''
President Bush's State of the Union Address, January 29,
2002.
(2) ``Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein
has weapons of mass destruction. He is amassing them to use
against our friends, our enemies and against us.'' Speech of
Vice President Cheney at VFW 103rd National Convention,
August 26, 2002.
(3) ``The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one
conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering
danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence.
To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of
millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And
this is a risk we must not take.'' Address of President Bush
to the United Nations General Assembly, September 12, 2002.
(4) ``[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more
immediate threat to the security of our people than the
regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.'' Statement of Former
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Congress, September 19,
2002.
(5) ``On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat
of unique urgency . . . it has developed weapons of mass
death.'' Statement of President Bush at White House, October
2, 2002.
(6) ``But the President also believes that this problem has
to be dealt with, and if the United Nations won't deal with
it, then the United States, with other likeminded nations,
may have to deal with it. We would prefer not to go that
route, but the danger is so great, with respect to Saddam
Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps even
terrorists getting hold of such weapons, that it is time for
the international community to act, and if it doesn't act,
the President is prepared to act with likeminded nations.''
Statement of Former Secretary of State Colin Powell in
interview with Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News, October 30,
2002.
(7) ``Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique
and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used
weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be
allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not
permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations
which love freedom.'' Speech by President Bush to Prague
Atlantic Student Summit, November 20, 2002.
(8) ``But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the
security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a
madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risk
of any action we may be forced to take.'' President Bush
Meets with National Economic Council at White House, February
25, 2003.
(B) In furtherance of his fraudulent effort to deceive
Congress and the citizens of the United States into believing
that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the
United States, the President allowed and authorized those
acting under his direction and control, including Vice
President Richard B. Cheney, former Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld, and Lewis Libby, who reported directly to
both the President and the Vice President, among others, to
pressure intelligence analysts to tailor their assessments
and to create special units outside of, and unknown to, the
intelligence community in order to secretly obtain unreliable
information, to manufacture intelligence, or to reinterpret
raw data in ways that would support the Bush administration's
plan to invade Iraq based on a false claim of urgency despite
the lack of justification for such a preemptive action.
(C) The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report on
Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government
Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information,
which was released on June 5, 2008, concluded that:
(1) ``Statements by the President and the Vice President
indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons
of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against
the United States were contradicted by available intelligence
information.''
Thus the President willfully and falsely misrepresented
Iraq as an urgent threat requiring immediate action thereby
subverting the national security interests of the United
States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 4,000
United States service members; the injuries to tens of
thousands of U.S. soldiers; the deaths of more than 1,000,000
Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of
approximately $527 billion in war costs which has increased
our Federal debt and the ultimate costs of the war between
three trillion and five trillion dollars; the loss of
military readiness within the
[[Page 12057]]
United States Armed Services due to overextension, the lack
of training and lack of equipment; the loss of United States
credibility in world affairs; and the decades of likely
blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article V.--ILLEGALLY MISSPENDING FUNDS TO SECRETLY BEGIN A WAR OF
AGGRESSION
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, illegally misspent funds to begin a war in secret
prior to any Congressional authorization.
The president used over $2 billion in the summer of 2002 to
prepare for the invasion of Iraq. First reported in Bob
Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, and later confirmed by the
Congressional Research Service, Bush took money appropriated
by Congress for Afghanistan and other programs and--with no
Congressional notification--used it to build airfields in
Qatar and to make other preparations for the invasion of
Iraq. This constituted a violation of Article I, Section 9 of
the U.S. Constitution, as well as a violation of the War
Powers Act of 1973.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article VI.--INVADING IRAQ IN VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.J.
Res. 114.
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', exceeded his Constitutional authority
to wage war by invading Iraq in 2003 without meeting the
requirements of H.J. Res. 114, the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'' to wit:
(1) H.J. Res. 114 contains several Whereas clauses
consistent with statements being made by the White House at
the time regarding the threat from Iraq as evidenced by the
following:
(A) H.J. Res. 114 states ``Whereas Iraq both poses a
continuing threat to the national security of the United
States and international peace and security in the Persian
Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things,
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear
weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations;''; and
(B) H.J. Res. 114 states ``Whereas members of Al Qaeda, an
organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United
States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;''.
(2) H.J. Res. 114 states that the President must provide a
determination, the truthfulness of which is implied, that
military force is necessary in order to use the
authorization, as evidenced by the following:
(A) Section 3 of H.J. Res. 114 states:
``(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use
force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon
thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours
after exercising such authority, make available to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro
tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-
243 is consistent with the United States and other countries
continuing to take the necessary actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations, or persons who
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(4) President George Bush knew that these statements were
false as evidenced by:
(A) Information provided with Article I, II, III, IV and V.
(B) A statement by President George Bush in an interview
with Tony Blair on January 31st 2003: [WH]
Reporter: ``One question for you both. Do you believe that
there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and
the men who attacked on September the 11th?''
President Bush: ``I can't make that claim''
(C) An article on February 19th by Terrorism expert Rohan
Gunaratna states ``I could find no evidence of links between
Iraq and Al Qaeda. The documentation and interviews indicated
that Al Qaeda regarded Saddam, a secular leader, as an
infidel.'' [International Herald Tribune]
(D) According to a February 2nd, 2003 article in the New
York Times: [NYT]
At the Federal Bureau of Investigation, some investigators
said they were baffled by the Bush administration's
insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's
network. ``We've been looking at this hard for more than a
year and you know what, we just don't think it's there,'' a
government official said.
(5) Section 3C of HJRes 114 states that ``Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.''
(6) The War Powers Resolution Section 9(d)(1) states:
(d) Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of
the Congress or of the President, or the provision of
existing treaties; or
(7) The United Nations Charter was an existing treaty and,
as shown in Article VIII, the invasion of Iraq violated that
treaty.
(8) President George Bush knowingly failed to meet the
requirements of HJRes 114 and violated the requirement of the
War Powers Resolution and, thereby, invaded Iraq without the
authority of Congress.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article VII.--INVADING IRAQ ABSENT A DECLARATION OF WAR
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has launched a war against Iraq absent
any congressional declaration of war or equivalent action.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 (the War Powers Clause)
makes clear that the United States Congress holds the
exclusive power to decide whether or not to send the nation
into war. ``The Congress,'' the War Powers Clause states,
``shall have power . . . To declare war . . .''
The October 2002 congressional resolution on Iraq did not
constitute a declaration of war or equivalent action. The
resolution stated: ``The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he deems necessary and
appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of
the United States against the continuing threat posed by
Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' The resolution
unlawfully sought to delegate to the President the decision
of whether or not to initiate a war against Iraq, based on
whether he deemed it ``necessary and appropriate.'' The
Constitution does not allow Congress to delegate this
exclusive power to the President, nor does it allow the
President to seize this power.
In March 2003, the President launched a war against Iraq
without any constitutional authority.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article VIII.--INVADING IRAQ, A SOVEREIGN NATION, IN VIOLATION OF THE
UN CHARTER AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', violated United
[[Page 12058]]
States law by invading the sovereign country of Iraq in
violation of the United Nations Charter to wit:
(1) International Laws ratified by Congress are part of
United States Law and must be followed as evidenced by the
following:
(A) Article VI of the United States Constitution, which
states ``This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;''
(2) The UN Charter, which entered into force following
ratification by the United States in 1945, requires Security
Council approval for the use of force except for self-defense
against an armed attack as evidenced by the following:
(A) Chapter 1, Article 2 of the United Nations Charter
states:
``3. All Members shall settle their international disputes
by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace
and security, and justice, are not endangered.
``4. All Members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state,
or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations.''
(B) Chapter 7, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter
states:
``51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an
armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security.''
(3) There was no armed attack upon the United States by
Iraq.
(4) The Security Council did not vote to approve the use of
force against Iraq as evidenced by:
(A) A United Nation Press release which states that the
United States had failed to convince the Security Council to
approve the use of military force against Iraq. [UN]
(5) President Bush directed the United States military to
invade Iraq on March 19th, 2003 in violation of the UN
Charter and, therefore, in violation of United States Law as
evidenced by the following:
(A) A letter from President Bush to Congress dated March
21st, 2003 stating ``I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating
with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on
March 19, 2003, against Iraq.'' [WH]
(B) On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General
of the United Nations, speaking on the invasion, said, ``I
have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter.
From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it
was illegal.'' [BBC]
(C) The consequence of the instant and direction of
President George W. Bush, in ordering an attack upon Iraq, a
sovereign nation is in direct violation of United States
Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 118, Section 2441, governing
the offense of war crimes.
(6) In the course of invading and occupying Iraq, the
President, as Commander in Chief, has taken responsibility
for the targeting of civilians, journalists, hospitals, and
ambulances, use of antipersonnel weapons including cluster
bombs in densely settled urban areas, the use of white
phosphorous as a weapon, depleted uranium weapons, and the
use of a new version of napalm found in Mark 77 firebombs.
Under the direction of President George Bush the United
States has engaged in collective punishment of Iraqi civilian
populations, including but not limited to blocking roads,
cutting electricity and water, destroying fuel stations,
planting bombs in farm fields, demolishing houses, and
plowing over orchards.
(A) Under the principle of ``command responsibility'',
i.e., that a de jure command can be civilian as well as
military, and can apply to the policy command of heads of
state, said command brings President George Bush within the
reach of international criminal law under the Additional
Protocol I of June 8, 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of
August 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts, Article 86(2). The United
States is a state signatory to Additional Protocol I, on
December 12, 1977.
(B) Furthermore, Article 85(3) of said Protocol I defines
as a grave breach making a civilian population or individual
civilians the object of attacks. This offense, together with
the principle of command responsibility, places President
George Bush's conduct under the reach of the same law and
principles described as the basis for war crimes prosecution
at Nuremburg, under Article 6 of the Charter of the Nuremberg
Tribunals: including crimes against peace, violations of the
laws and customs of war and crimes against humanity,
similarly codified in the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Court, Articles 5 through 8.
(C) The Lancet Report has established massive civilian
casualties in Iraq as a result of the United States' invasion
and occupation of that country.
(D) International laws governing wars of aggression are
completely prohibited under the legal principle of jus
cogens, whether or not a nation has signed or ratified a
particular international agreement.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office
Article IX.--FAILING TO PROVIDE TROOPS WITH BODY ARMOR AND VEHICLE
ARMOR
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, has been responsible for the deaths of members of
the U.S. military and serious injury and trauma to other
soldiers, by failing to provide available body armor and
vehicle armor.
While engaging in an invasion and occupation of choice, not
fought in self-defense, and not launched in accordance with
any timetable other than the President's choosing, President
Bush sent U.S. troops into danger without providing them with
armor. This shortcoming has been known for years, during
which time, the President has chosen to allow soldiers and
marines to continue to face unnecessary risk to life and limb
rather then providing them with armor.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article X.--FALSIFYING ACCOUNTS OF U.S. TROOP DEATHS AND INJURIES FOR
POLITICAL PURPOSES
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, promoted false propaganda stories about members of
the United States military, including individuals both dead
and injured.
The White House and the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2004
promoted a false account of the death of Specialist Pat
Tillman, reporting that he had died in a hostile exchange,
delaying release of the information that he had died from
friendly fire, shot in the forehead three times in a manner
that led investigating doctors to believe he had been shot at
close range.
A 2005 report by Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones reported that in
the days immediately following Specialist Tillman's death,
U.S. Army investigators were aware that Specialist Tillman
was killed by friendly fire, shot three times to the head,
and that senior Army commanders, including Gen. John Abizaid,
knew of this fact within days of the shooting but
nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star, Purple
Heart, and a posthumous promotion.
On April 24, 2007, Spc. Bryan O'Neal, the last soldier to
see Specialist Pat Tillman alive, testified before the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he was warned
by superiors not to divulge information that a fellow soldier
killed Specialist Tillman, especially to the Tillman family.
The White House refused to provide requested documents to the
committee, citing ``executive branch confidentiality
interests.''
The White House and DOD in 2003 promoted a false account of
the injury of Jessica Dawn Lynch, reporting that she had been
captured in a hostile exchange and had been dramatically
rescued. On April 2, 2003, the DOD released a video of the
rescue and claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and
that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and
interrogated. Iraqi doctors and nurses later interviewed,
including Dr. Harith Al-Houssona, a doctor in the Nasirya
hospital, described Lynch's injuries as ``a broken arm, a
broken thigh, and a dislocated ankle.'' According to Al-
Houssona, there was no sign of gunshot or stab wounds, and
Lynch's injuries were consistent with those that would be
suffered in a car accident. Al-Houssona's claims were later
confirmed in a U.S. Army report leaked on July 10, 2003.
Lynch denied that she fought or was wounded fighting,
telling Diane Sawyer that the Pentagon ``used me to symbolize
all this stuff. It's wrong. I don't know why they filmed [my
rescue] or why they say these things. . . . I did not
shoot, not a round, nothing. I went down praying to my knees.
[[Page 12059]]
And that's the last I remember.'' She reported excellent
treatment in Iraq, and that one person in the hospital even
sang to her to help her feel at home.
On April 24, 2007 Lynch testified before the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
``[Right after my capture], tales of great heroism were
being told. My parent's home in Wirt County was under siege
of the media all repeating the story of the little girl Rambo
from the hills who went down fighting. It was not true. . . .
I am still confused as to why they chose to lie.''
The White House had heavily promoted the false story of
Lynch's rescue, including in a speech by President Bush on
April 28, 2003. After the fiction was exposed, the President
awarded Lynch the Bronze Star.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XI.--ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT U.S. MILITARY BASES IN IRAQ
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has violated an act of Congress that
he himself signed into law by using public funds to construct
permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
On January 28, 2008, President George W. Bush signed into
law the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
2008 (H.R. 4986). Noting that the Act ``authorizes funding
for the defense of the United States and its interests
abroad, for military construction, and for national security-
related energy programs,'' the president added the following
``signing statement'':
``Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079,
and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit
the President's ability to carry out his constitutional
obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, to protect national security, to supervise the
executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander
in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions
in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of
the President.''
Section 1222 clearly prohibits the expenditure of money for
the purpose of establishing permanent U.S. military bases in
Iraq. The construction of over $1 billion in U.S. military
bases in Iraq, including runways for aircraft, continues
despite congressional intent, as the Administration intends
to force upon the Iraqi government such terms which will
assure the bases remain in Iraq.
Iraqi officials have informed Members of Congress in May
2008 of the strong opposition within the Iraqi parliament and
throughout Iraq to the agreement that the administration is
trying to negotiate with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-
Maliki. The agreement seeks to assure a long-term U.S.
presence in Iraq of which military bases are the most
obvious, sufficient and necessary construct, thus clearly
defying Congressional intent as to the matter and meaning of
``permanency.''
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XII.--INITIATING A WAR AGAINST IRAQ FOR CONTROL OF THAT
NATION'S NATURAL RESOURCES
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, invaded and occupied a foreign nation for the
purpose, among other purposes, of seizing control of that
nation's oil.
The White House and its representatives in Iraq have, since
the occupation of Baghdad began, attempted to gain control of
Iraqi oil. This effort has included pressuring the new Iraqi
government to pass a hydrocarbon law. Within weeks of the
fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAid) awarded a $240 million
contract to Bearing Point, a private U.S. company. A Bearing
Point employee, based in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, was
hired to advise the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up the
new hydrocarbon law. The draft law places executives of
foreign oil companies on a council with the task of approving
their own contracts with Iraq; it denies the Iraqi National
Oil Company exclusive rights for the exploration,
development, production, transportation, and marketing of
Iraqi oil, and allows foreign companies to control Iraqi oil
fields containing 80 percent of Iraqi oil for up to 35 years
through contracts that can remain secret for up to 2 months.
The draft law itself contains secret appendices.
President Bush provided unrelated reasons for the invasion
of Iraq to the public and Congress, but those reasons have
been established to have been categorically fraudulent, as
evidenced by the herein mentioned Articles of Impeachment I,
II, III, IV, VI, and VII.
Parallel to the development of plans for war against Iraq,
the U.S. State Department's Future of Iraq project, begun as
early as April 2002, involved meetings in Washington and
London of 17 working groups, each composed of 10 to 20 Iraqi
exiles and international experts selected by the State
Department. The Oil and Energy working group met four times
between December 2002 and April 2003. Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum,
later the Iraqi Oil Minister, was a member of the group,
which concluded that Iraq ``should be opened to international
oil companies as quickly as possible after the war,'' and
that, ``the country should establish a conducive business
environment to attract investment of oil and gas resources.''
The same group recommended production-sharing agreements with
foreign oil companies, the same approach found in the draft
hydrocarbon law, and control over Iraq's oil resources
remains a prime objective of the Bush Administration.
Prior to his election as Vice President, Dick Cheney, then-
CEO of Halliburton, in a speech at the Institute of Petroleum
in 1999 demonstrated a keen awareness of the sensitive
economic and geopolitical role of Middle East oil resources
saying: ``By 2010, we will need on the order of an additional
50 million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come
from? Governments and national oil companies are obviously
controlling about 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains
fundamentally a government business. While many regions of
the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East,
with two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still
where the prize ultimately lies. Even though companies are
anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be
slow.''
The Vice President led the work of a secret energy task
force, as described in Article XXXII below, a task force that
focused on, among other things, the acquisition of Iraqi oil
through developing a controlling private corporate interest
in said oil.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
ARTICLE XIII.--CREATING A SECRET TASK FORCE TO DEVELOP ENERGY AND
MILITARY POLICIES WITH RESPECT TO IRAQ AND OTHER COUNTRIES
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting
through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, created a secret task force to guide our nation's
energy policy and military policy, and undermined Congress'
ability to legislate by thwarting attempts to investigate the
nature of that policy.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report on the
Cheney Energy Task Force, in August 2003, described the
creation of this task force as follows:
``In a January 29, 2001, memorandum, the President
established NEPDG [the National Energy Policy Development
Group]--comprised of the Vice President, nine cabinet-level
officials, and four other senior administration officials--to
gather information, deliberate, and make recommendations to
the President by the end of fiscal year 2001. The President
called on the Vice President to chair the group, direct its
work and, as necessary, establish subordinate working groups
to assist NEPDG.''
The four ``other senior administration officials were the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the
Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for
Policy, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy,
and the Deputy Assistant to the President for
Intergovernmental Affairs.
The GAO report found that: ``In developing the National
Energy Policy report, the NEPDG Principals, Support Group,
and participating agency officials and staff met with,
solicited input from, or received information and advice from
nonfederal energy stakeholders, principally petroleum, coal,
nuclear, natural gas, and electricity industry
[[Page 12060]]
representatives and lobbyists. The extent to which
submissions from any of these stakeholders were solicited,
influenced policy deliberations, or were incorporated into
the final report cannot be determined based on the limited
information made available to GAO. NEPDG met and conducted
its work in two distinct phases: the first phase culminated
in a March 19, 2001, briefing to the President on challenges
relating to energy supply and the resulting economic impact;
the second phase ended with the May 16, 2001, presentation of
the final report to the President. The Office of the Vice
President's (OVP) unwillingness to provide the NEPDG records
or other related information precluded GAO from fully
achieving its objectives and substantially limited GAO's
ability to comprehensively analyze the NEPDG process.
associated with that process.
``None of the key federal entities involved in the NEPDG
effort provided GAO with a complete accounting of the costs
that they incurred during the development of the National
Energy Policy report. The two federal entities responsible
for funding the NEPDG effort--OVP and the Department of
Energy (DOE)--did not provide the comprehensive cost
information that GAO requested. OVP provided GAO with 77
pages of information, two-thirds of which contained no cost
information while the remaining one-third contained some
miscellaneous information of little to no usefulness. OVP
stated that it would not provide any additional information.
DOE, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) provided GAO with estimates of
certain costs and salaries associated with the NEPDG effort,
but these estimates, all calculated in different ways, were
not comprehensive.''
In 2003, the Commerce Department disclosed a partial
collection of materials from the NEPDG, including documents,
maps, and charts, dated March 2001, of Iraq's, Saudi Arabia's
and the United Arab Emirates' oil fields, pipelines,
refineries, tanker terminals, and development projects.
On November 16, 2005, the Washington Post reported on a
White House document showing that oil company executives had
met with the NEPDG, something that some of those same
executives had just that week denied in Congressional
testimony. The Bush Administration had not corrected the
inaccurate testimony.
On July 18, 2007, the Washington Post reported the full
list of names of those who had met with the NEPDG.
In 1998 Kenneth Derr, then chief executive of Chevron, told
a San Francisco audience, ``Iraq possesses huge reserves of
oil and gas, reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to.''
According to the GAO report, Chevron provided detailed advice
to the NEPDG.
In March, 2001, the NEPDG recommended that the United
States Government support initiatives by Middle Eastern
countries ``to open up areas of their energy sectors to
foreign investment.'' Following the invasion of Iraq, the
United States has pressured the new Iraqi parliament to pass
a hydrocarbon law that would do exactly that. The draft law,
if passed, would take the majority of Iraq's oil out of the
exclusive hands of the Iraqi Government and open it to
international oil companies for a generation or more. The
Bush administration hired Bearing Point, a U.S. company, to
help write the law in 2004. It was submitted to the Iraqi
Council of Representatives in May 2007.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XIV.--MISPRISION OF A FELONY, MISUSE AND EXPOSURE OF CLASSIFIED
INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF VALERIE PLAME
WILSON, CLANDESTINE AGENT OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President,
(1) suppressed material information;
(2) selectively declassified information for the improper
purposes of retaliating against a whistleblower and
presenting a misleading picture of the alleged threat from
Iraq;
(3) facilitated the exposure of the identity of Valerie
Plame Wilson who had theretofore been employed as a covert
CIA operative;
(4) failed to investigate the improper leaks of classified
information from within his administration;
(5) failed to cooperate with an investigation into possible
federal violations resulting from this activity; and
(6) finally, entirely undermined the prosecution by
commuting the sentence of Lewis Libby citing false and
insubstantial grounds, all in an effort to prevent Congress
and the citizens of the United States from discovering the
deceitful nature of the President's claimed justifications
for the invasion of Iraq.
In facilitating this exposure of classified information and
the subsequent cover-up, in all of these actions and
decisions, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner
contrary to his trust as President, and subversive of
constitutional government, to the prejudice of the cause of
law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of
the United States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by
such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting
removal from office.
Article XV.--PROVIDING IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL
CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, established policies granting United States
government contractors and their employees in Iraq immunity
from Iraqi law, U.S. law, and international law.
Lewis Paul Bremer III, then-Director of Reconstruction and
Humanitarian Assistance for post-war Iraq, on June 27, 2004,
issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17, which
granted members of the U.S. military, U.S. mercenaries, and
other U.S. contractor employees immunity from Iraqi law.
The Bush Administration has chosen not to apply the Uniform
Code of Military Justice or United States law to mercenaries
and other contractors employed by the United States
government in Iraq.
Operating free of Iraqi or U.S. law, mercenaries have
killed many Iraqi civilians in a manner that observers have
described as aggression and not as self-defense. Many U.S.
contractors have also alleged that they have been the victims
of aggression (in several cases of rape) by their fellow
contract employees in Iraq. These charges have not been
brought to trial, and in several cases the contracting
companies and the U.S. State Department have worked together
in attempting to cover them up.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United
States is party, and which under Article VI of the U.S.
Constitution is therefore the supreme law of the United
States, it is the responsibility of an occupying force to
ensure the protection and human rights of the civilian
population. The efforts of President Bush and his
subordinates to attempt to establish a lawless zone in Iraq
are in violation of the law.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice
of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of
the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense
warranting removal from office.
Article XVI.--RECKLESS MISSPENDING AND WASTE OF U.S. TAX DOLLARS IN
CONNECTION WITH IRAQ CONTRACTORS
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, recklessly wasted public funds on contracts
awarded to close associates, including companies guilty of
defrauding the government in the past, contracts awarded
without competitive bidding, ``cost-plus'' contracts designed
to encourage cost overruns, and contracts not requiring
satisfactory completion of the work. These failures have been
the rule, not the exception, in the awarding of contracts for
work in the United States and abroad over the past seven
years. Repeated exposure of fraud and waste has not been met
by the president with correction of systemic problems, but
rather with retribution against whistleblowers.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
reported on Iraq reconstruction contracting:
``From the beginning, the Administration adopted a flawed
contracting approach in Iraq. Instead of maximizing
competition, the Administration opted to award no-bid, cost-
plus contracts to politically connected contractors.
Halliburton's secret $7 billion contract to restore Iraq's
oil infrastructure is the prime example. Under this no-bid,
cost-plus contract, Halliburton was reimbursed for its costs
and then received an additional
[[Page 12061]]
fee, which was a percentage of its costs. This created an
incentive for Halliburton to run up its costs in order to
increase its potential profit.
``Even after the Administration claimed it was awarding
Iraq contracts competitively in early 2004, real price
competition was missing. Iraq was divided geographically and
by economic sector into a handful of fiefdoms. Individual
contractors were then awarded monopoly contracts for all of
the work within given fiefdoms. Because these monopoly
contracts were awarded before specific projects were
identified, there was no actual price competition for more
than 2,000 projects.
``In the absence of price competition, rigorous government
oversight becomes essential for accountability. Yet the
Administration turned much of the contract oversight work
over to private companies with blatant conflicts of interest.
Oversight contractors oversaw their business partners and, in
some cases, were placed in a position to assist their own
construction work under separate monopoly construction
contracts. . . .
``Under Halliburton's two largest Iraq contracts, Pentagon
auditors found $1 billion in `questioned' costs and over $400
million in 'unsupported' costs. Former Halliburton employees
testified that the company charged $45 for cases of soda,
billed $100 to clean 15-pound bags of laundry, and insisted
on housing its staff at the five-star Kempinski hotel in
Kuwait. Halliburton truck drivers testified that the company
`torched' brand new $85,000 trucks rather than perform
relatively minor repairs and regular maintenance. Halliburton
procurement officials described the company's informal motto
in Iraq as 'Don't worry about price. It's cost-plus.' A
Halliburton manager was indicted for `major fraud against the
United States' for allegedly billing more than $5.5 billion
for work that should have cost only $685,000 in exchange for
a $1 million kickback from a Kuwaiti subcontractor. . . .
``The Air Force found that another U.S. government
contractor, Custer Battles, set up shell subcontractors to
inflate prices. Those overcharges were passed along to the
U.S. government under the company's cost-plus contract to
provide security for Baghdad International Airport. In one
case, the company allegedly took Iraqi-owned forklifts, re-
painted them, and leased them to the U.S. government.
``Despite the spending of billions of taxpayer dollars,
U.S. reconstruction efforts in keys sectors of the Iraqi
economy are failing. Over two years after the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq, oil and electricity production has fallen
below pre-war levels. The Administration has failed to even
measure how many Iraqis lack access to drinkable water.''
``Constitution in Crisis,'' a book by Congressman John
Conyers, details the Bush Administration's response when
contract abuse is made public:
``Bunnatine Greenhouse was the chief contracting officer at
the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much
of the reconstruction work in Iraq. In October 2004, Ms.
Greenhouse came forward and revealed that top Pentagon
officials showed improper favoritism to Halliburton when
awarding military contracts to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg
Brown & Root (KBR). Greenhouse stated that when the Pentagon
awarded Halliburton a five-year $7 billion contract, it
pressured her to withdraw her objections, actions which she
claimed were unprecedented in her experience.
``On June 27, 2005, Ms. Greenhouse testified before
Congress, detailing that the contract award process was
compromised by improper influence by political appointees,
participation by Halliburton officials in meetings where
bidding requirements were discussed, and a lack of
competition. She stated that the Halliburton contracts
represented ``the most blatant and improper contract abuse I
have witnessed during the course of my professional career.''
Days before the hearing, the acting general counsel of the
Army Corps of Engineers paid Ms. Greenhouse a visit and
reportedly let it be known that it would not be in her best
interest to appear voluntarily.
``On August 27, 2005, the Army demoted Ms. Greenhouse,
removing her from the elite Senior Executive Service and
transferring her to a lesser job in the corps' civil works
division. As Frank Rich of The New York Times described the
situation, '[H]er crime was not obstructing justice but
pursuing it by vehemently questioning irregularities in the
awarding of some $7 billion worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq
to the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown Root.' The
demotion was in apparent retaliation for her speaking out
against the abuses, even though she previously had stellar
reviews and over 20 years of experience in military
procurement.''
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
reports on domestic contracting:
``The Administration's domestic contracting record is no
better than its record on Iraq. Waste, fraud, and abuse
appear to be the rule rather than the exception. . . .
``A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) cost-plus
contract with NCS Pearson, Inc., to hire federal airport
screeners was plagued by poor management and egregious waste.
Pentagon auditors challenged $303 million (over 40%) of the
$741 million spent by Pearson under the contract. The
auditors detailed numerous concerns with the charges of
Pearson and its subcontractors, such as `$20-an-hour
temporary workers billed to the government at $48 per hour,
subcontractors who signed out $5,000 in cash at a time with
no supporting documents, $377,273.75 in unsubstantiated long
distance phone calls, $514,201 to rent tents that flooded in
a rainstorm, [and] $4.4 million in ``no show'' fees for job
candidates who did not appear for tests.' A Pearson employee
who supervised Pearson's hiring efforts at 43 sites in the
U.S. described the contract as `a waste a taxpayer's money.'
The CEO of one Pearson subcontractor paid herself $5.4
million for nine months work and provided herself with a
$270,000 pension. . . .
``The Administration is spending $239 million on the
Integrated Surveillance and Intelligence System, a no-bid
contract to provide thousands of cameras and sensors to
monitor activity on the Mexican and Canadian borders.
Auditors found that the contractor, International Microwave
Corp., billed for work it never did and charged for equipment
it never provided, 'creat[ing] a potential for overpayments
of almost $13 million.' Moreover, the border monitoring
system reportedly does not work. . . .
``After spending more than $4.5 billion on screening
equipment for the nation's entry points, the Department of
Homeland Security is now `moving to replace or alter much of'
it because `it is ineffective, unreliable or too expensive to
operate.' For example, radiation monitors at ports and
borders reportedly could not `differentiate between radiation
emitted by a nuclear bomb and naturally occurring radiation
from everyday material like cat litter or ceramic tile.' . .
.
``The TSA awarded Boeing a cost-plus contract to install
over 1,000 explosive detection systems for airline passenger
luggage. After installation, the machines `began to register
false alarms' and `[s]creeners were forced to open and hand-
check bags.' To reduce the number of false alarms, the
sensitivity of the machines was lowered, which reduced the
effectiveness of the detectors. Despite these serious
problems, Boeing received an $82 million profit that the
Inspector General determined to be `excessive.' . . .
``The FBI spent $170 million on a `Virtual Case File'
system that does not operate as required. After three years
of work under a cost-plus contract failed to produce a
functional system, the FBI scrapped the program and began
work on the new `Sentinel' Case File System. . . .
``The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General
found that taxpayer dollars were being lavished on perks for
agency officials. One IG report found that TSA spent over
$400,000 on its first leader's executive office suite.
Another found that TSA spent $350,000 on a gold-plated gym. .
. .
``According to news reports, Pentagon auditors . . .
examined a contract between the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) and Unisys, a technology and consulting
company, for the upgrade of airport computer networks. Among
other irregularities, government auditors found that Unisys
may have overbilled for as much as 171,000 hours of labor and
overtime by charging for employees at up to twice their
actual rate of compensation. While the cost ceiling for the
contract was set at $1 billion, Unisys has reportedly billed
the government $940 million with more than half of the seven-
year contract remaining and more than half of the TSA-
monitored airports still lacking upgraded networks.''
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XVII.--ILLEGAL DETENTION: DETAINING INDEFINITELY AND WITHOUT
CHARGE PERSONS BOTH U.S. CITIZENS AND FOREIGN CAPTIVES
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, violated United States and International Law and
the U.S. Constitution by illegally detaining indefinitely and
without charge persons both U.S. citizens and foreign
captives.
In a statement on Feb. 7, 2002, President Bush declared
that in the U.S. fight against Al Qaeda, ``none of the
provisions of Geneva apply,'' thus rejecting the Geneva
Conventions that protect captives in wars and other
conflicts. By that time, the administration was already
transporting captives from the war in Afghanistan, both
alleged Al Qaeda members and supporters, and also Afghans
accused of being fighters in the army of the Taliban
government, to U.S.-run prisons in Afghanistan and to the
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The round-up and
[[Page 12062]]
detention without charge of Muslim non-citizens inside the
U.S. began almost immediately after the September 11, 2001
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with some
being held as long as nine months. The U.S., on orders of the
president, began capturing and detaining without charge
alleged terror suspects in other countries and detaining them
abroad and at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo.
Many of these detainees have been subjected to systematic
abuse, including beatings, which have been subsequently
documented by news reports, photographic evidence, testimony
in Congress, lawsuits, and in the case of detainees in the
U.S., by an investigation conducted by the Justice
Department's Office of the Inspector General.
In violation of U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions, the
Bush Administration instructed the Department of Justice and
the U.S. Department of Defense to refuse to provide the
identities or locations of these detainees, despite requests
from Congress and from attorneys for the detainees. The
president even declared the right to detain U.S. citizens
indefinitely, without charge and without providing them
access to counsel or the courts, thus depriving them of their
constitutional and basic human rights. Several of those U.S.
citizens were held in military brigs in solitary confinement
for as long as three years before being either released or
transferred to civilian detention.
Detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq and Guantanamo have, in
violation of the Geneva Conventions, been hidden from and
denied visits by the International Red Cross organization,
while thousands of others in Iraq, Guantanamo, Afghanistan,
ships in foreign off-shore sites, and an unknown number of
so-called ``black sites'' around the world have been denied
any opportunity to challenge their detentions. The president,
acting on his own claimed authority, has declared the
hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be ``enemy
combatants'' not subject to U.S. law and not even subject to
military law, but nonetheless potentially liable to the death
penalty.
The detention of individuals without due process violates
the 5th Amendment. While the Bush administration has been
rebuked in several court cases, most recently that of Ali al-
Marri, it continues to attempt to exceed constitutional
limits.
In all of these actions violating U.S. and International
law, President George W. Bush has acted in a manner contrary
to his trust as President and Commander in Chief, and
subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice of
the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of
the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense
warranting removal from office.
ARTICLE XVIII.--TORTURE: SECRETLY AUTHORIZING, AND ENCOURAGING THE USE
OF TORTURE AGAINST CAPTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, AND OTHER PLACES, AS
A MATTER OF OFFICIAL POLICY
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, violated United States and International Law and
the U.S. Constitution by secretly authorizing and encouraging
the use of torture against captives in Afghanistan, Iraq in
connection with the so-called ``war'' on terror.
In violation of the Constitution, U.S. law, the Geneva
Conventions (to which the U.S. is a signatory), and in
violation of basic human rights, torture has been authorized
by the President and his administration as official policy.
Water-boarding, beatings, faked executions, confinement in
extreme cold or extreme heat, prolonged enforcement of
painful stress positions, sleep deprivation, sexual
humiliation, and the defiling of religious articles have been
practiced and exposed as routine at Guantanamo, at Abu Ghraib
Prison and other U.S. detention sites in Iraq, and at Bagram
Air Base in Afghanistan. The president, besides bearing
responsibility for authorizing the use of torture, also as
Commander in Chief, bears ultimate responsibility for the
failure to halt these practices and to punish those
responsible once they were exposed.
The administration has sought to claim the abuse of
captives is not torture, by redefining torture. An August 1,
2002 memorandum from the Administration's Office of Legal
Counsel Jay S. Bybee addressed to White House Counsel Alberto
R. Gonzales concluded that to constitute torture, any pain
inflicted must be akin to that accompanying ``serious
physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily
function, or even death.'' The memorandum went on to state
that even should an act constitute torture under that minimal
definition, it might still be permissible if applied to
``interrogations undertaken pursuant to the President's
Commander-in-Chief powers.'' The memorandum further asserted
that ``necessity or self-defense could provide justifications
that would eliminate any criminal liability.''
This effort to redefine torture by calling certain
practices simply ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' flies
in the face of the Third Geneva Convention Relating to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War, which states that ``No
physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion,
may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them
information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse
to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any
unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.''
Torture is further prohibited by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, the paramount international human rights
statement adopted unanimously by the United Nations General
Assembly, including the United States, in 1948. Torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is
also prohibited by international treaties ratified by the
United States: the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CAT).
When the Congress, in the Defense Authorization Act of
2006, overwhelmingly passed a measure banning torture and
sent it to the President's desk for signature, the President,
who together with his vice president, had fought hard to
block passage of the amendment, signed it, but then quietly
appended a signing statement in which he pointedly asserted
that as Commander-in-Chief, he was not bound to obey its
strictures.
The administration's encouragement of and failure to
prevent torture of American captives in the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and in the battle against terrorism, has
undermined the rule of law in the U.S. and in the US
military, and has seriously damaged both the effort to combat
global terrorism, and more broadly, America's image abroad.
In his effort to hide torture by U.S. military forces and the
CIA, the president has defied Congress and has lied to the
American people, repeatedly claiming that the U.S. ``does not
torture.''
In all of these actions and decisions in violation of U.S.
and International law, President George W. Bush has acted in
a manner contrary to his trust as President and Commander in
Chief, and subversive of constitutional government, to the
prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest
injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore,
President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an
impeachable offense warranting removal from office.
ARTICLE XIX.--RENDITION: KIDNAPPING PEOPLE AND TAKING THEM AGAINST
THEIR WILL TO ``BLACK SITES'' LOCATED IN OTHER NATIONS, INCLUDING
NATIONS KNOWN TO PRACTICE TORTURE
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, violated United States and International Law and
the U.S. Constitution by kidnapping people and renditioning
them to ``black sites'' located in other nations, including
nations known to practice torture.
The president has publicly admitted that since the 9-11
attacks in 2001, the U.S. has been kidnapping and
transporting against the will of the subject (renditioning)
in its so-called ``war'' on terror--even people captured by
U.S. personnel in friendly nations like Sweden, Germany,
Macedonia and Italy--and ferrying them to places like Bagram
Airbase in Afghanistan, and to prisons operated in Eastern
European countries, African Countries and Middle Eastern
countries where security forces are known to practice
torture.
These people are captured and held indefinitely, without
any charges being filed, and are held without being
identified to the Red Cross, or to their families. Many are
clearly innocent, and several cases, including one in Canada
and one in Germany, have demonstrably been shown subsequently
to have been in error, because of a similarity of names or
because of misinformation provided to U.S. authorities.
Such a policy is in clear violation of U.S. and
International Law, and has placed the United States in the
position of a pariah state. The CIA has no law enforcement
authority, and cannot legally arrest or detain anyone. The
program of ``extraordinary rendition'' authorized by the
president is the substantial equivalent of the policies of
``disappearing'' people, practices widely practiced and
universally condemned in the military dictatorships of Latin
America during the late 20th Century.
The administration has claimed that prior administrations
have practiced extraordinary rendition, but, while this is
technically true, earlier renditions were used only to
capture people with outstanding arrest warrants or
convictions who were outside in order to deliver them to
stand trial or
[[Page 12063]]
serve their sentences in the U.S. The president has refused
to divulge how many people have been subject to extraordinary
rendition since September, 2001. It is possible that some
have died in captivity. As one U.S. official has stated off
the record, regarding the program, Some of those who were
renditioned were later delivered to Guantanamo, while others
were sent there directly. An example of this is the case of
six Algerian Bosnians who, immediately after being cleared by
the Supreme Court of Bosnia Herzegovina in January 2002 of
allegedly plotting to attack the U.S. and UK embassies, were
captured, bound and gagged by U.S. special forces and
renditioned to Guantanamo.
In perhaps the most egregious proven case of rendition,
Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was picked up
in September 2002 while transiting through New York's JFK
airport on his way home to Canada. Immigration and FBI
officials detained and interrogated him for nearly two weeks,
illegally denying him his rights to access counsel, the
Canadian consulate, and the courts. Executive branch
officials asked him if he would volunteer to go to Syria,
where he hadn't been in 15 years, and Maher refused
Maher was put on a private jet plane operated by the CIA
and sent to Jordan, where he was beaten for 8 hours, and then
delivered to Syria, where he was beaten and interrogated for
18 hours a day for a couple of weeks. He was whipped on his
back and hands with a 2 inch thick electric cable and asked
questions similar to those he had been asked in the United
States. For over ten months Maher was held in an underground
grave-like cell--3 x 6 x 7 feet--which was damp and cold, and
in which the only light came in through a hole in the
ceiling. After a year of this, Maher was released without any
charges. He is now back home in Canada with his family. Upon
his release, the Syrian Government announced he had no links
to Al Qaeda, and the Canadian Government has also said
they've found no links to Al Qaeda. The Canadian Government
launched a Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian
Officials in Relation to Maher Arar, to investigate the role
of Canadian officials, but the Bush Administration has
refused to cooperate with the Inquiry.
Hundreds of flights of CIA-chartered planes have been
documented as having passed through European countries on
extraordinary rendition missions like that involving Maher
Arar, but the administration refuses to state how many people
have been subjects of this illegal program.
The same U.S. laws prohibiting aiding and abetting torture
also prohibit sending someone to a country where there is a
substantial likelihood they may be tortured. Article 3 of CAT
prohibits forced return where there is a ``substantial
likelihood'' that an individual ``may be in danger of''
torture, and has been implemented by federal statute. Article
7 of the ICCPR prohibits return to country of origin where
individuals may be ``at risk'' of either torture or cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment.
Under international Human Rights law, transferring a POW to
any nation where he or she is likely to be tortured or
inhumanely treated violates Article 12 of the Third Geneva
Convention, and transferring any civilian who is a protected
person under the Fourth Geneva Convention is a grave breach
and a criminal act.
In situations of armed conflict, both international human
rights law and humanitarian law apply. A person captured in
the zone of military hostilities ``must have some status
under international law; he is either a prisoner of war and,
as such, covered by the Third Convention, [or] a civilian
covered by the Fourth Convention. . . . There is no
intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the
law.'' Although the state is obligated to repatriate
Prisoners of War as soon as hostilities cease, the ICRC's
commentary on the 1949 Conventions states that prisoners
should not be repatriated where there are serious reasons for
fearing that repatriating the individual would be contrary to
general principles of established international law for the
protection of human beings Thus, all of the Guantanamo
detainees as well as renditioned captives are protected by
international human rights protections and humanitarian law.
By his actions as outlined above, the President has abused
his power, broken the law, deceived the American people, and
placed American military personnel, and indeed all
Americans--especially those who may travel or live abroad--at
risk of similar treatment. Furthermore, in the eyes of the
rest of the world, the President has made the U.S., once a
model of respect for Human Rights and respect for the rule of
law, into a state where international law is neither
respected nor upheld.
In all of these actions and decisions in violation of
United States and International law, President George W. Bush
has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and
Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XX.--IMPRISONING CHILDREN
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, authorized or permitted the
arrest and detention of at least 2500 children under the age
of 18 as ``enemy combatants'' in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in violation of the Fourth
Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of ``protected
persons'' and the Optional Protocol to the Geneva Convention
on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in
Armed Conflict, signed by the U.S. in 2002. To wit:
In May 2008, the U.S. government reported to the United
Nations that it has been holding upwards of 2,500 children
under the age of 18 as ``enemy combatants'' at detention
centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay (where
there was a special center, Camp Iguana, established just for
holding children). The length of these detentions has
frequently exceeded a year, and in some cases has stretched
to five years. Some of these detainees have reached adulthood
in detention and are now not being reported as child
detainees because they are no longer children.
In addition to detaining children as ``enemy combatants,''
it has been widely reported in media reports that the U.S.
military in Iraq has, based upon Pentagon rules of
engagement, been treating boys as young as 14 years of age as
``potential combatants,'' subject to arrest and even to being
killed. In Fallujah, in the days ahead of the November 2004
all-out assault, Marines ringing the city were reported to be
turning back into the city men and boys ``of combat age'' who
were trying to flee the impending scene of battle--an act
which in itself is a violation of the Geneva Conventions,
which require combatants to permit anyone, combatants as well
as civilians, to surrender, and to leave the scene of battle.
Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which the United
States has been a signatory since 1949, children under the
age of 15 captured in conflicts, even if they have been
fighting, are to be considered victims, not prisoners. In
2002, the United States signed the Optional Protocol to the
Geneva Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
Involvement of children in Armed Conflict, which raised this
age for this category of ``protected person'' to under 18.
The continued detention of such children, some as young as
10, by the U.S. military is a violation of both convention
and protocol, and as such constitutes a war crime for which
the president, as commander in chief, bears full
responsibility.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXI.--MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT THREATS
FROM IRAN, AND SUPPORTING TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN IRAN, WITH THE
GOAL OF OVERTHROWING THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the
laws be faithfully executed, has both personally and acting
through his agents and subordinates misled the Congress and
the citizens of the United States about a threat of nuclear
attack from the nation of Iran.
The National Intelligence Estimate released to Congress and
the public on December 4, 2007, which confirmed that the
government of the nation of Iran had ceased any efforts to
develop nuclear weapons, was completed in 2006. Yet, the
president and his aides continued to suggest during 2007 that
such a nuclear threat was developing and might already exist.
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley stated at the time
the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran was
released that the president had been briefed on its findings
``in the last few months.'' Hadley's statement establishes a
timeline that shows the president knowingly sought to deceive
Congress and the American people about a nuclear threat that
did not exist.
Hadley has stated that the president ``was basically told:
stand down'' and, yet, the president and his aides continued
to make false claims about the prospect that Iran was trying
to ``build a nuclear weapon'' that could lead to ``World War
III.''
This evidence establishes that the president actively
engaged in and had full knowledge of a campaign by his
administration to
[[Page 12064]]
make a false ``case'' for an attack on Iran, thus warping the
national security debate at a critical juncture and creating
the prospect of an illegal and unnecessary attack on a
sovereign nation.
Even after the National Intelligence Estimate was released
to Congress and the American people, the president stated
that he did not believe anything had changed and suggested
that he and members of his administration would continue to
argue that Iran should be seen as posing a threat to the
United States. He did this despite the fact that United
States intelligence agencies had clearly and officially
stated that this was not the case.
Evidence suggests that the Bush Administration's attempts
to portray Iran as a threat are part of a broader U.S. policy
toward Iran. On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of
overturning the regime in Iran, as well as those in Iraq,
Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according
to a document quoted in then- Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy Douglas Feith's book, ``War and Decision.''
General Wesley Clark, reports in his book ``Winning Modern
Wars'' being told by a friend in the Pentagon in November
2001 that the list of governments that Rumsfeld and Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz planned to overthrow
included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. Clark
writes that the list also included Lebanon.
Journalist Gareth Porter reported in May 2008 asking Feith
at a public event which of the six regimes on the Clark list
were included in the Rumsfeld paper, to which Feith replied
``All of them.''
Rumsfeld's aides also drafted a second version of the
paper, as instructions to all military commanders in the
development of ``campaign plans against terrorism''. The
paper called for military commanders to assist other
government agencies ``as directed'' to ``encourage
populations dominated by terrorist organizations or their
supporters to overthrow that domination.''
In January 2005, Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker
Magazine that the Bush Administration had been conducting
secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran at least since the
summer of 2004.
In June 2005 former United Nations weapons inspector Scott
Ritter reported that United States security forces had been
sending members of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) into Iranian
territory. The MEK has been designated a terrorist
organization by the United States, the European Union,
Canada, Iraq, and Iran. Ritter reported that the United
States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had used the MEK to
carry out remote bombings in Iran.
In April 2006, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine
that U.S. combat troops had entered and were operating in
Iran, where they were working with minority groups including
the Azeris, Baluchis, and Kurds.
Also in April 2006, Larisa Alexandrovna reported on Raw
Story that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) was working
with and training the MEK, or former members of the MEK,
sending them to commit acts of violence in southern Iran in
areas where recent attacks had left many dead. Raw Story
reported that the Pentagon had adopted the policy of
supporting MEK shortly after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and
in response to the influence of Vice President Richard B.
Cheney's office. Raw Story subsequently reported that no
Presidential finding, and no Congressional oversight, existed
on MEK operations.
In March 2007, Hersh reported in the New Yorker Magazine
that the Bush administration was attempting to stem the
growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically
the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding
violent Sunni organizations, without any Congressional
authorization or oversight. Hersh said funds had been given
to ``three Sunni jihadist groups . . . connected to al
Qaeda'' that ``want to take on Hezbollah.''
In April 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported that
conflicts with insurgent groups along Iran's borders were
understood by the Iranian government as a proxy war with the
United States and were leading Iran to support its allies
against the United States' occupation force in Iraq. Among
the groups the U.S. DOD is supporting, according to this
report, is the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan, known by its
Kurdish acronym, PEJAK. The United States has provided
``foodstuffs, economic assistance, medical supplies and
Russian military equipment, some of it funneled through
nonprofit groups.''
In May 2008, Andrew Cockburn reported on Counter Punch that
President Bush, six weeks earlier had signed a secret finding
authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime.
President Bush's secret directive covers actions across an
area stretching from Lebanon to Afghanistan, and purports to
sanction actions up to and including the funding of
organizations like the MEK and the assassination of public
officials.
All of these actions by the President and his agents and
subordinates exhibit a disregard for the truth and a
recklessness with regard to national security, nuclear
proliferation and the global role of the United States
military that is not merely unacceptable but dangerous in a
commander-in- chief.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXII--CREATING SECRET LAWS
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, established a body of secret laws through the
issuance of legal opinions by the Department of Justice's
Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
The OLC's March 14, 2003, interrogation memorandum (``Yoo
Memorandum'') was declassified years after it served as law
for the executive branch. On April 29, 2008, House Judiciary
Committee Chairman John Conyers and Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chairman
Jerrold Nadler wrote in a letter to Attorney General Michael
Mukasey:
``It appears to us that there was never any legitimate
basis for the purely legal analysis contained in this
document to be classified in the first place. The Yoo
Memorandum does not describe sources and methods of
intelligence gathering, or any specific facts regarding any
interrogation activities. Instead, it consists almost
entirely of the Department's legal views, which are not
properly kept secret from Congress and the American people.
J. William Leonard, the Director of the National Archive's
Office of Information Security Oversight Office, and a top
expert in this field concurs, commenting that `[t]he document
in question is purely a legal analysis' that contains
`nothing which would justify classification.' In addition,
the Yoo Memorandum suggests an extraordinary breadth and
aggressiveness of OLC's secret legal opinion-making. Much
attention has rightly been given to the statement in footnote
10 in the March 14, 2003, memorandum that, in an October 23,
2001, opinion, OLC concluded `that the Fourth Amendment had
no application to domestic military operations.' As you know,
we have requested a copy of that memorandum on no less than
four prior occasions and we continue to demand access to this
important document.
``In addition to this opinion, however, the Yoo Memorandum
references at least 10 other OLC opinions on weighty matters
of great interest to the American people that also do not
appear to have been released. These appear to cover matters
such as the power of Congress to regulate the conduct of
military commissions, legal constraints on the `military
detention of United States citizens,' legal rules applicable
to the boarding and searching foreign ships, the President's
authority to render U.S. detainees to the custody of foreign
governments, and the President's authority to breach or
suspend U.S. treaty obligations. Furthermore, it has been
more than five years since the Yoo Memorandum was authored,
raising the question how many other such memoranda and
letters have been secretly authored and utilized by the
Administration.
``Indeed, a recent court filing by the Department in FOIA
litigation involving the Central Intelligence Agency
identifies 8 additional secret OLC opinions, dating from
August 6, 2004, to February 18, 2007. Given that these
reflect only OLC memoranda identified in the files of the
CIA, and based on the sampling procedures under which that
listing was generated, it appears that these represent only a
small portion of the secret OLC memoranda generated during
this time, with the true number almost certainly much
higher.''
Senator Russ Feingold, in a statement during an April 30,
2008, senate hearing stated:
``It is a basic tenet of democracy that the people have a
right to know the law. In keeping with this principle, the
laws passed by Congress and the case law of our courts have
historically been matters of public record. And when it
became apparent in the middle of the 20th century that
federal agencies were increasingly creating a body of non-
public administrative law, Congress passed several statutes
requiring this law to be made public, for the express purpose
of preventing a regime of `secret law.' That purpose today is
being thwarted. Congressional enactments and agency
regulations are for the most part still public. But the law
that applies in this country is determined not only by
statutes and regulations, but also by the controlling
interpretations of courts and, in some cases, the executive
branch. More and more, this body of executive and judicial
law is being kept secret from the public, and too often from
Congress as well. . . .
``A legal interpretation by the Justice Department's Office
of Legal Counsel . . . binds
[[Page 12065]]
the entire executive branch, just like a regulation or the
ruling of a court. In the words of former OLC head Jack
Goldsmith, `These executive branch precedents are ``law'' for
the executive branch.' The Yoo memorandum was, for a nine-
month period in 2003 until it was withdrawn by Mr. Goldsmith,
the law that this Administration followed when it came to
matters of torture. And of course, that law was essentially a
declaration that few if any laws applied . . .
``Another body of secret law is the controlling
interpretations of the Fo reign Intelligence Surveillance Act
that are issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court. FISA, of course, is the law that governs the
government's ability in intelligence investigations to
conduct wiretaps and search the homes of people in the United
States. Under that statute, the FISA Court is directed to
evaluate wiretap and search warrant applications and decide
whether the standard for issuing a warrant has been met--a
largely factual evaluation that is properly done behind
closed doors. But with the evolution of technology and with
this Administration's efforts to get the Court's blessing for
its illegal wiretapping activities, we now know that the
Court's role is broader, and that it is very much engaged in
substantive interpretations of the governing statute. These
interpretations are as much a part of this country's
surveillance law as the statute itself. Without access to
them, it is impossible for Congress or the public to have an
informed debate on matters that deeply affect the privacy and
civil liberties of all Americans . . .
``The Administration's shroud of secrecy extends to agency
rules and executive pronouncements, such as Executive Orders,
that carry the force of law. Through the diligent efforts of
my colleague Senator Whitehouse, we have learned that OLC has
taken the position that a President can `waive' or `modify' a
published Executive Order without any notice to the public or
Congress simply by not following it.''
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President, and subversive of constitutional government, to
the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is
guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXIII--VIOLATION OF THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, repeatedly and illegally
established programs to appropriate the power of the military
for use in law enforcement. Specifically, he has contravened
U.S.C. Title 18, Section 1385, originally enacted in 1878,
subsequently amended as ``Use of Army and Air Force as Posse
Comitatus'' and commonly known as the Posse Comitatus Act.
The Act states:
``Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances
expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,
willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a
posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be
fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years,
or both.''
The Posse Comitatus Act is designed to prevent the military
from becoming a national police force.
The Declaration of Independence states as a specific
grievance against the British that the King had ``kept among
us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of
our legislatures,'' had ``affected to render the Military
independent of and superior to the civil power,'' and had
``quarter[ed] large bodies of armed troops among us . . .
protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any
murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
States''
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's intent, and in
contravention of the law, President Bush:
(a) has used military forces for law enforcement purposes
on U.S. border patrol;
(b) has established a program to use military personnel for
surveillance and information on criminal activities;
(c) is using military espionage equipment to collect
intelligence information for law enforcement use on civilians
within the United States; and
(d) employs active duty military personnel in surveillance
agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
In June 2006, President Bush ordered National Guard troops
deployed to the border shared by Mexico with Arizona, Texas,
and California. This deployment, which by 2007 reached a
maximum of 6,000 troops, had orders to ``conduct surveillance
and operate detection equipment, work with border entry
identification teams, analyze information, assist with
communications and give administrative support to the Border
Patrol'' and concerned ``. . . providing intelligence,
inspecting cargo, and conducting surveillance.''
The Air Force's ``Eagle Eyes'' program encourages Air Force
military staff to gather evidence on American citizens. Eagle
Eyes instructs Air Force personnel to engage in surveillance
and then advises them to ``alert local authorities,'' asking
military staff to surveil and gather evidence on public
citizens. This contravenes DoD Directive 5525.5 ``SUBJECT:
DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement'' which limits
such activities.
President Bush has implemented a program to use imagery
from military satellites for domestic law enforcement through
the National Applications Office.
President Bush has assigned numerous active duty military
personnel to civilian institutions such as the CIA and the
Department of Homeland Security, both of which have
responsibilities for law enforcement and intelligence.
In addition, on May 9, 2007, President Bush released
``National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51,'' which
effectively gives the president unchecked power to control
the entire government and to define that government in time
of an emergency, as well as the power to determine whether
there is an emergency. The document also contains
``classified Continuity Annexes.'' In July 2007 and again in
August 2007 Rep. Peter DeFazio, a senior member of the House
Homeland Security Committee, sought access to the classified
annexes. DeFazio and other leaders of the Homeland Security
Committee, including Chairman Bennie Thompson, have been
denied a review of the Continuity of Government classified
annexes.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXIV.--SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS, WITHOUT A COURT-ORDERED
WARRANT, IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, knowingly violated the fourth
Amendment to the Constitution and the Foreign Intelligence
Service Act of 1978 (FISA) by authorizing warrantless
electronic surveillance of American citizens to wit:
(1) The President was aware of the FISA Law requiring a
court order for any wiretap as evidenced by the following:
(A) ``Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States
government talking about wiretap, it requires--a wiretap
requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When
we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking
about getting a court order before we do so.'' White House
Press conference on April 20, 2004. [White House Transcript]
(B) ``Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's
permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, or to
track his calls, or to search his property. Officers must
meet strict standards to use any of the tools we're talking
about.'' President Bush's speech in Baltimore Maryland on
July 20th 2005. [White House Transcript]
(2) The President repeatedly ordered the NSA to place
wiretaps on American citizens without requesting a warrant
from FISA as evidenced by the following:
(A) ``Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush
secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop
on Americans and others inside the United States to search
for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved
warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according
to government officials.'' New York Times article by James
Risen and Eric Lichtblau on December 12, 2005. [NYTimes]
(B) The President admits to authorizing the program by
stating ``I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times
since the September the 11th attacks, and I intend to do so
for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al
Qaeda and related groups. The NSA's activities under this
authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice
Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's
general counsel and inspector general. Leaders in Congress
have
[[Page 12066]]
been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization
and the activities conducted under it.'' Radio Address from
the White House on December 17, 2005. [White House
Transcript]
(C) In a December 19th 2005 press conference the President
publicly admitted to using a combination of surveillance
techniques including some with permission from the FISA
courts and some without permission from FISA.
Reporter: It was, why did you skip the basic safeguards of
asking courts for permission for the intercepts?
The President: . . . We use FISA still--you're referring to
the FISA court in your question--of course, we use FISAs. But
FISA is for long-term monitoring. What is needed in order to
protect the American people is the ability to move quickly to
detect. Now, having suggested this idea, I then, obviously,
went to the question, is it legal to do so? I am--I swore to
uphold the laws. Do I have the legal authority to do this?
And the answer is, absolutely. As I mentioned in my remarks,
the legal authority is derived from the Constitution, as well
as the authorization of force by the United States
Congress.'' [White House Transcript]
(D) Mike McConnel, the Director of National Intelligence,
in a letter to to Senator Arlen Specter, acknowledged that
Bush's Executive Order in 2001 authorized a series of secret
surveillance activities and included undisclosed activities
beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone
calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005. ``NSA Spying Part
of Broader Effort'' by Dan Eggen, Washington Post, 8/1/07.
(3) The President ordered the surveillance to be conducted
in a way that would spy upon private communications between
American citizens located within the United States borders as
evidenced by the following:
(A) Mark Klein, a retired AT&T communications technician,
submitted an affidavit in support of the Electronic Frontier
Foundation's FF's lawsuit against AT&T. He testified that in
2003 he connected a ``splitter'' that sent a copy of Internet
traffic and phone calls to a secure room that was operated by
the NSA in the San Francisco office of AT&T. He heard from a
co-worker that similar rooms were being constructed in other
cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San
Diego. From ``Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room,'' Wired News,
4/7/06 [Wired] [EFF Case]
(4) The President asserted an inherent authority to conduct
electronic surveillance based on the Constitution and the
``Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq'' (AUMF) that
was not legally valid as evidenced by the following:
(A) In a December 19th, 2005 Press Briefing General Alberto
Gonzales admitted that the surveillance authorized by the
President was not only done without FISA warrants, but that
the nature of the surveillance was so far removed from what
FISA can approve that FISA could not even be amended to allow
it. Gonzales stated ``We have had discussions with Congress
in the past--certain members of Congress--as to whether or
not FISA could be amended to allow us to adequately deal with
this kind of threat, and we were advised that that would be
difficult, if not impossible.''.
(B) The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution
states ``The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''
(C) ``The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
unambiguously limits warrantless domestic electronic
surveillance, even in a congressionally declared war, to the
first 15 days of that war; criminalizes any such electronic
surveillance not authorized by statute; and expressly
establishes FISA and two chapters of the federal criminal
code, governing wiretaps for intelligence purposes and for
criminal investigation, respectively, as the ``exclusive
means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the
interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic
communications may be conducted.'' 50 U.S.C. 1811, 1809, 18
U.S.C. 2511(2)(f).'' Letter from Harvard Law Professor
Lawrence Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06.
(D) In a December 19th, 2005 Press Briefing Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales stated ``Our position is, is that
the authorization to use force, which was passed by the
Congress in the days following September 11th, constitutes
that other authorization, that other statute by Congress, to
engage in this kind of signals intelligence.''
(E) The ``Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq''
does not give any explicit authorization related to
electronic surveillance. [HJRes114]
(F) ``From the foregoing analysis, it appears unlikely that
a court would hold that Congress has expressly or impliedly
authorized the NSA electronic surveillance operations here
under discussion, and it would likewise appear that, to the
extent that those surveillances fall within the definition of
``electronic surveillance'' within the meaning of FISA or any
activity regulated under Title III, Congress intended to
cover the entire field with these statutes.'' From the
``Presidential Authority to Conduct Warrantless Electronic
Surveillance to Gather Foreign Intelligence Information'' by
the Congressional Research Service on January 5, 2006.
(G) ``The inescapable conclusion is that the AUMF did not
implicitly authorize what the FISA expressly prohibited. It
follows that the presidential program of surveillance at
issue here is a violation of the separation of powers--as
grave an abuse of executive authority as I can recall ever
having studied.'' Letter from Harvard Law Professor Lawrence
Tribe to John Conyers on 1/6/06.
(H) On August 17, 2006 Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the
United States District Court in Detroit, in ACLU v. NSA,
ruled that the ``NSA program to wiretap the international
communications of some Americans without a court warrant
violated the Constitution. . . . Judge Taylor ruled that the
program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law
that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence
wiretaps involving people in the United States. She rejected
the administration's repeated assertions that a 2001
Congressional authorization and the president's
constitutional authority allowed the program.'' From a New
York Times article ``Judge Finds Wiretap Actions Violate the
Law'' 8/18/06 and the Memorandum Opinion.
(I) In July 2007, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
dismissed the case, ruling the plaintiffs had no standing to
sue because, given the secretive nature of the surveillance,
they could not state with certainty that they have been
wiretapped by the NSA. This ruling did not address the
legality of the surveillance so Judge Taylor's decision is
the only ruling on that issue. [ACLU Legal Documents]
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
article xxv.--directing telecommunications companies to create an
illegal and unconstitutional database of the private telephone numbers
and emails of american citizens
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, violated the Stored
Communications Act of 1986 and the Telecommunications Act of
1996 by creating of a very large database containing
information related to the private telephone calls and emails
of American citizens, to wit:
The President requested that telecommunication companies
release customer phone records to the government illegally as
evidenced by the following:
``The Stored Communications Act of 1986 (SCA) prohibits the
knowing disclosure of customer telephone records to the
government unless pursuant to subpoena, warrant or a National
Security Letter (or other Administrative subpoena); with the
customers lawful consent; or there is a business necessity;
or an emergency involving the danger of death or serious
physical injury. None of these exceptions apply to the
circumstance described in the USA Today story.'' From page
169, ``George W Bush versus the U.S. Constitution.'' Compiled
at the direction of Representative John Conyers.
According to a May 11, 2006 article in USA Today by Lesley
Cauley ``The National Security Agency has been secretly
collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of
Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and
BellSouth.'' An unidentified source said `The agency's goal
is to create a database of every call ever made within the
nation's borders.''
In early 2001, Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio rejected a request
from the NSA to turn over customers records of phone calls,
emails and other Internet activity. Nacchio believed that
complying with the request would violate the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. From National Journal,
November 2, 2007.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
article xxvi.--announcing the intent to violate laws with signing
statements, and violating those laws
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation
[[Page 12067]]
of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office
of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and in violation of his constitutional
duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution ``to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' has used
signing statements to claim the right to violate acts of
Congress even as he signs them into law.
In June 2007, the Government Accountability Office reported
that in a sample of Bush signing statements the office had
studied, for 30 percent of them the Bush administration had
already proceeded to violate the laws the statements claimed
the right to violate.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXVII.--FAILING TO COMPLY WITH CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENAS AND
INSTRUCTING FORMER EMPLOYEES NOT TO COMPLY
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, refused to comply with
Congressional subpoenas, and instructed former employees not
to comply with subpoenas.
Subpoenas not complied with include:
A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for Justice Department
papers and Emails, issued April 10, 2007;
A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena
for the testimony of the Secretary of State, issued April 25,
2007;
A House Judiciary Committee subpoena for the testimony of
former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and documents,
issued June 13, 2007;
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, issued
June 13, 2007;
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Political Director Sara Taylor,
issued June 13, 2007 (Taylor appeared but refused to answer
questions);
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove,
issued June 26, 2007;
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for documents and
testimony of White House Deputy Political Director J. Scott
Jennings, issued June 26, 2007 (Jennings appeared but refused
to answer questions);
A Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena for legal analysis
and other documents concerning the NSA warrantless
wiretapping program from the White House, Vice President
Richard Cheney, The Department of Justice, and the National
Security Council. If the documents are not produced, the
subpoena requires the testimony of White House chief of staff
Josh Bolten, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Cheney chief
of staff David Addington, National Security Council executive
director V. Philip Lago, issued June 27, 2007;
A House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoena
for Lt. General Kensinger.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXVIII.--TAMPERING WITH FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS, CORRUPTION OF
THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, conspired to undermine and
tamper with the conduct of free and fair elections, and to
corrupt the administration of justice by United States
Attorneys and other employees of the Department of Justice,
through abuse of the appointment power.
Toward this end, the President and Vice President, both
personally and through their agents, did:
Engage in a program of manufacturing false allegations of
voting fraud in targeted jurisdictions where the Democratic
Party enjoyed an advantage in electoral performance or
otherwise was problematic for the President's Republican
Party, in order that public confidence in election results
favorable to the Democratic Party be undermined;
Direct United States Attorneys to launch and announce
investigations of certain leaders, candidates and elected
officials affiliated with the Democratic Party at times
calculated to cause the most political damage and confusion,
most often in the weeks immediately preceding an election, in
order that public confidence in the suitability for office of
Democratic Party leaders, candidates and elected officials be
undermined;
Direct United States Attorneys to terminate or scale back
existing investigations of certain Republican Party leaders,
candidates and elected officials allied with the George W.
Bush administration, and to refuse to pursue new or proposed
investigations of certain Republican Party leaders,
candidates and elected officials allied with the George W.
Bush administration, in order that public confidence in the
suitability of such Republican Party leaders, candidates and
elected officials be bolstered or restored;
Threaten to terminate the employment of the following
United States Attorneys who refused to comply with such
directives and purposes;
David C. Iglesias as U.S. Attorney for the District of New
Mexico;
Kevin V. Ryan as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of
California;
John L. McKay as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of
Washington;
Paul K. Charlton as U.S. Attorney for the District of
Arizona;
Carol C. Lam as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
California;
Daniel G. Bogden as U.S. Attorney for the District of
Nevada;
Margaret M. Chiara as U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Michigan;
Todd Graves as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of
Missouri;
Harry E. ``Bud'' Cummins, III as U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of Arkansas;
Thomas M. DiBiagio as U.S. Attorney for the District of
Maryland, and;
Kasey Warner as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of
West Virginia.
Further, George W. Bush has both personally and acting
through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President conspired to obstruct the lawful Congressional
investigation of these dismissals of United States Attorneys
and the related scheme to undermine and tamper with the
conduct of free and fair elections, and to corrupt the
administration of justice.
Contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of
President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and in violation of his constitutional
duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
George W. Bush has without lawful cause or excuse directed
not to appear before the Committee on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives certain witnesses summoned by duly
authorized subpoenas issued by that Committee on June 13,
2007.
In refusing to permit the testimony of these witnesses
George W. Bush, substituting his judgment as to what
testimony was necessary for the inquiry, interposed the
powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the
House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself
functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the
checking and balancing power of oversight vested in the House
of Representatives.
Further, the President has both personally and acting
through his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President directed the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia to decline to prosecute for contempt of
Congress the aforementioned witnesses, Joshua B. Bolten and
Harriet E. Miers, despite the obligation to do so as
established by statute (2 U.S.C. Sec. 194) and pursuant to
the direction of the United States House of Representatives
as embodied in its resolution (H. Res. 982) of February 14,
2008.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXIX.--CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed,'' has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, has willfully corrupted and
manipulated the electoral process of the United States for
his personal gain and the personal gain of his co-
conspirators and allies; has violated the United States
Constitution and law by failing to protect the civil
[[Page 12068]]
rights of African-American voters and others in the 2004
Election, and has impeded the right of the people to vote and
have their vote properly and accurately counted, in that:
A. On November 5, 2002, and prior thereto, James Tobin,
while serving as the regional director of the National
Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and as the New
England Chairman of Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., did, at the
direction of the White House under the administration of
George W. Bush, along with other agents both known and
unknown, commit unlawful acts by aiding and abetting a scheme
to use computerized hang-up calls to jam phone lines set up
by the New Hampshire Democratic Party and the Manchester
firefighters' union on Election Day;
B. An investigation by the Democratic staff of the House
Judiciary Committee into the voting procedures in Ohio during
the 2004 election found ``widespread instances of
intimidation and misinformation in violation of the Voting
Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Equal Protection,
Due Process and the Ohio right to vote;''
C. The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause guarantees
that no minority group will suffer disparate treatment in a
federal, state, or local election in stating that: ``No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''
However, during and at various times of the year 2004, John
Kenneth Blackwell, then serving as the Secretary of State for
the State of Ohio and also serving simultaneously as Co-
Chairman of the Committee to Re-Elect George W. Bush in the
State of Ohio, did, at the direction of the White House under
the administration of George W. Bush, along with other agents
both known and unknown, commit unlawful acts in violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the
United States Constitution by failing to protect the voting
rights of African-American citizens in Ohio and further, John
Kenneth Blackwell did disenfranchise African-American voters
under color of law, by
(i) Willfully denying certain neighborhoods in the cities
of Cleveland, Ohio and Columbus, Ohio, along with other urban
areas in the State of Ohio, an adequate number of electronic
voting machines and provisional paper ballots, thereby
unlawfully impeding duly registered voters from the act of
voting and thus violating the civil rights of an unknown
number of United States citizens.
a. In Franklin County, George W. Bush and his agent, Ohio
Secretary of State John Kenneth Blackwell, Co-Chair of the
Bush-Cheney Re-election Campaign, failed to protect the
rights of African-American voters by not properly
investigating the withholding of 125 electronic voting
machines assigned to the city of Columbus.
b. Forty-two African-American precincts in Columbus were
each missing one voting machine that had been present in the
2004 primary.
c. African-American voters in the city of Columbus were
forced to wait three to seven hours to vote in the 2004
presidential election.
(ii) Willfully issuing unclear and conflicting rules
regarding the methods and manner of becoming a legally
registered voter in the State of Ohio, and willfully issuing
unclear and unnecessary edicts regarding the weight of paper
registration forms legally acceptable to the State of Ohio,
thereby creating confusion for both voters and voting
officials and thus impeding the right of an unknown number of
United States citizens to register and vote.
a. Ohio Secretary of State John Kenneth Blackwell directed
through Advisory 2004-31 that voter registration forms, which
were greatest in urban minority areas, should not be accepted
and should be returned unless submitted on 80 bond paper
weight. Blackwell's own office was found to be using 60 bond
paper weight.
(iii) Willfully permitted and encouraged election officials
in Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo to conduct a massive
partisan purge of registered voter rolls, eventually
expunging more than 300,000 voters, many of whom were duly
registered voters, and who were thus deprived of their
constitutional right to vote;
a. Between the 2000 and 2004 Ohio presidential elections,
24.93% of the voters in the city of Cleveland, a city with a
majority of African American citizens, were purged from the
voting rolls.
b. In that same period, the Ohio county of Miami, with
census data indicating a 98% Caucasian population, refused to
purge any voters from its rolls. Miami County ``merged''
voters from other surrounding counties into its voting rolls
and even allowed voters from other states to vote.
c. In Toledo, Ohio, an urban city with a high African-
American concentration, 28,000 voters were purged from the
voting rolls in August of 2004, just prior to the
presidential election. This purge was conducted under the
control and direction of George W. Bush's agent, Ohio
Secretary of State John Kenneth Blackwell outside of the
regularly established cycle of purging voters in odd-numbered
years.
(iv) Willfully allowing Ohio Secretary of State John
Kenneth Blackwell, acting under color of law and as an agent
of George W. Bush, to issue a directive that no votes would
be counted unless cast in the right precinct, reversing
Ohio's long-standing practice of counting votes for president
if cast in the right county.
(v) Willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Secretary of State
John Kenneth Blackwell, the Co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney Re-
election Campaign, to do nothing to assure the voting rights
of 10,000 people in the city of Cleveland when a computer
error by the private vendor Diebold Election Systems, Inc.
incorrectly disenfranchised 10,000 voters
(vi) Willfully allowing his agent, Ohio Secretary of State
John Kenneth Blackwell, the Co-Chair of the Bush-Cheney Re-
election Campaign, to ensure that uncounted and provisional
ballots in Ohio's 2004 presidential election would be
disproportionately concentrated in urban African-American
districts.
a. In Ohio's Lucas County, which includes Toledo, 3,122 or
41.13% of the provisional ballots went uncounted under the
direction of George W. Bush's agent, the Secretary of State
of Ohio, John Kenneth Blackwell, Co- Chair of the Committee
to Re-Elect Bush/Cheney in Ohio.
b. In Ohio's Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland,
8,559 or 32.82% of the provisional ballots went uncounted.
c. In Ohio's Hamilton County, which includes Cincinnati,
3,529 or 24.23% of the provisional ballots went uncounted.
d. Statewide, the provisional ballot rejection rate was 9%
as compared to the greater figures in the urban areas.
D. The Department of Justice, charged with enforcing the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 14th Amendment's Equal
Protection Clause, and other voting rights laws in the United
States of America, under the direction and Administration of
George W. Bush did willfully and purposely obstruct and
stonewall legitimate criminal investigations into myriad
cases of reported electoral fraud and suppression in the
state of Ohio. Such activities, carried out by the department
on behalf of George W. Bush in counties such as Franklin and
Knox by persons such as John K. Tanner and others, were meant
to confound and whitewash legitimate legal criminal
investigations into the suppression of massive numbers of
legally registered voters and the removal of their right to
cast a ballot fairly and freely in the state of Ohio, which
was crucial to the certified electoral victory of George W.
Bush in 2004.
E. On or about November 1, 2006, members of the United
States Department of Justice, under the control and direction
of the Administration of George W. Bush, brought indictments
for voter registration fraud within days of an election, in
order to directly effect the outcome of that election for
partisan purposes, and in doing so, thereby violated the
Justice Department's own rules against filing election-
related indictments close to an election;
F. Emails have been obtained showing that the Republican
National Committee and members of Bush-Cheney '04 Inc., did,
at the direction of the White House under the administration
of George W. Bush, engage in voter suppression in five states
by a method know as ``vote caging,'' an illegal voter
suppression technique;
G. Agents of George W. Bush, including Mark F. ``Thor''
Hearne, the national general counsel of Bush/Cheney '04,
Inc., did, at the behest of George W. Bush, as members of a
criminal front group, distribute known false information and
propaganda in the hopes of forwarding legislation and other
actions that would result in the disenfranchisement of
Democratic voters for partisan purposes. The scheme, run
under the auspices of an organization known as ``The American
Center for Voting Rights'' (ACVR), was funded by agents of
George W. Bush in violation of laws governing tax exempt
501(c)3 organizations and in violation of federal laws
forbidding the distribution of such propaganda by the federal
government and agents working on its behalf.
H. Members of the United States Department of Justice,
under the control and direction of the Administration of
George W. Bush, did, for partisan reasons, illegally and with
malice aforethought block career attorneys and other
officials in the Department of Justice from filing three
lawsuits charging local and county governments with violating
the voting rights of African-Americans and other minorities,
according to seven former senior United States Justice
Department employees.
I. Members of the United States Department of Justice,
under the control and direction of the Administration of
George W. Bush, did illegally and with malice aforethought
derail at least two investigations into possible voter
discrimination, according to a letter sent to the Senate
Rules and Administration Committee and written by former
employees of the United States Department of Justice, Voting
Rights Section.
J. Members of the United States Election Assistance
Commission (EAC), under the control and direction of the
Administration of George W. Bush, have purposefully and
willfully misled the public, in violation of several laws,
by;
[[Page 12069]]
(i) Withholding from the public and then altering a legally
mandated report on the true measure and threat of Voter
Fraud, as commissioned by the EAC and completed in June 2006,
prior to the 2006 mid-term election, but withheld from
release prior to that election when its information would
have been useful in the administration of elections across
the country, because the results of the statutorily required
and tax-payer funded report did not conform with the illegal,
partisan propaganda efforts and politicized agenda of the
Bush Administration;
(ii) Withholding from the public a legally mandated report
on the disenfranchising effect of Photo Identification laws
at the polling place, shown to disproportionately
disenfranchise voters not of George W. Bush's political
party. The report was commissioned by the EAC and completed
in June 2006, prior to the 2006 mid-term election, but
withheld from release prior to that election when its
information would have been useful in the administration of
elections across the country
(iii) Withholding from the public a legally mandated report
on the effectiveness of Provisional Voting as commissioned by
the EAC and completed in June 2006, prior to the 2006 mid-
term election, but withheld from release prior to that
election when its information would have been useful in the
administration of elections across the country, and keeping
that report unreleased for more than a year until it was
revealed by independent media outlets.
For directly harming the rights and manner of suffrage, for
suffering to make them secret and unknowable, for overseeing
and participating in the disenfranchisement of legal voters,
for instituting debates and doubts about the true nature of
elections, all against the will and consent of local voters
affected, and forced through threats of litigation by agents
and agencies overseen by George W. Bush, the actions of Mr.
Bush to do the opposite of securing and guaranteeing the
right of the people to alter or abolish their government via
the electoral process, being a violation of an inalienable
right, and an immediate threat to Liberty.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
ARTICLE XXX.--MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN AN ATTEMPT
TO DESTROY MEDICARE
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, pursued policies which deliberately drained the
fiscal resources of Medicare by forcing it to compete with
subsidized private insurance plans which are allowed to
arbitrarily select or not select those they will cover;
failing to provide reasonable levels of reimbursements to
Medicare providers, thereby discouraging providers from
participating in the program, and designing a Medicare Part D
benefit without cost controls which allowed pharmaceutical
companies to gouge the American taxpayers for the price of
prescription drugs.
The President created, manipulated, and disseminated
information given to the citizens and Congress of the United
States in support of his prescription drug plan for Medicare
that enriched drug companies while failing to save
beneficiaries sufficient money on their prescription drugs.
He misled Congress and the American people into thinking the
cost of the benefit was $400 billion. It was widely
understood that if the cost exceeded that amount, the bill
would not pass due to concerns about fiscal irresponsibility.
A Medicare Actuary who possessed information regarding the
true cost of the plan, $539 billion, was instructed by the
Medicare Administrator to deny Congressional requests for it.
The Actuary was threatened with sanctions if the information
was disclosed to Congress, which, unaware of the information,
approved the bill. Despite the fact that official cost
estimates far exceeded $400 billion, President Bush offered
assurances to Congress that the cost was $400 billion, when
his office had information to the contrary. In the House of
Representatives, the bill passed by a single vote and the
Conference Report passed by only 5 votes. The White House
knew the actual cost of the drug benefit was high enough to
prevent its passage. Yet the White House concealed the truth
and impeded an investigation into its culpability.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article XXXI.--KATRINA: FAILURE TO PLAN FOR THE PREDICTED DISASTER OF
HURRICANE KATRINA, FAILURE TO RESPOND TO A CIVIL EMERGENCY
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, failed to take sufficient action
to protect life and property prior to and in the face of
Hurricane Katrina in 2005, given decades of foreknowledge of
the dangers of storms to New Orleans and specific forewarning
in the days prior to the storm. The President failed to
prepare for predictable and predicted disasters, failed to
respond to an immediate need of which he was informed, and
has subsequently failed to rebuild the section of our nation
that was destroyed.
Hurricane Katrina killed at least 1,282 people, with 2
million more displaced. 302,000 housing units were destroyed
or damaged by the hurricane, 71% of these were low-income
units. More than 500 sewage plants were destroyed, more than
170 point-source leakages of gasoline, oil, or natural gas,
more than 2000 gas stations submerged, several chemical
plants, 8 oil refineries, and a superfund site was submerged.
8 million gallons of oil were spilled. Toxic materials seeped
into floodwaters and spread through much of the city and
surrounding areas.
The predictable increased strength of hurricanes such as
Katrina has been identified by scientists for years, and yet
the Bush Administration has denied this science and
restricted such information from official reports,
publications, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Agency's website. Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science,
wrote in 2006 that ``hurricane intensity has increased with
oceanic surface temperatures over the past 30 years. The
physics of hurricane intensity growth . . . has clarified and
explained the thermodynamic basis for these observations.
[Kerry] Emanuel has tested this relationship and presented
convincing evidence.''
FEMA's 2001 list of the top three most likely and most
devastating disasters were a San Francisco earthquake, a
terrorist attack on New York, and a Category 4 hurricane
hitting New Orleans, with New Orleans being the number one
item on that list. FEMA conducted a five-day hurricane
simulation exercise in 2004, ``Hurricane Pam,'' mimicking a
Katrina-like event. This exercise combined the National
Weather Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the LSU
Hurricane Center and other state and federal agencies,
resulting in the development of emergency response plans. The
exercise demonstrated, among other things, that thousands of
mainly indigent New Orleans residents would be unable to
evacuate on their own. They would need substantial government
assistance. These plans, however, were not implemented in
part due to the President's slashing of funds for protection.
In the year before Hurricane Katrina hit, the President
continued to cut budgets and deny grants to the Gulf Coast.
In June of 2004 the Army Corps of Engineers levee budget for
New Orleans was cut, and it was cut again in June of 2005,
this time by $71.2 million or a whopping 44% of the budget.
As a result, ACE was forced to suspend any repair work on the
levees. In 2004 FEMA denied a Louisiana disaster mitigation
grant request.
The President was given multiple warnings that Hurricane
Katrina had a high likelihood of causing serious damage to
New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. At 10 AM on Sunday 28 August
2005, the day before the storm hit, the National Weather
Service published an alert titled ``DEVASTATING DAMAGE
EXPECTED.'' Printed in all capital letters, the alert stated
that ``MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS . . .
PERHAPS LONGER. AT LEAST ONE HALF OF WELL CONSTRUCTED HOMES
WILL HAVE ROOF AND WALL FAILURE. . . . POWER OUTAGES WILL
LAST FOR WEEKS. . . . WATER SHORTAGES WILL MAKE HUMAN
SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS.''
The Homeland Security Department also briefed the President
on the scenario, warning of levee breaches and severe
flooding. According to the New York Times, ``a Homeland
Security Department report submitted to the White House at
1:47 a.m. on Aug. 29, hours before the storm hit, said, `Any
storm rated Category 4 or greater will likely lead to severe
flooding and/or levee breaching.' '' These warnings clearly
contradict the statements made by President Bush immediately
after the storm that such devastation could not have been
predicted. On 1 September 2005 the President said ``I don't
think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.''
The President's response to Katrina via FEMA and DHS was
criminally delayed, indifferent, and inept. The only FEMA
employee posted in New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina, Marty
[[Page 12070]]
Bahamonde, emailed head of FEMA Michael Brown from his
Blackberry device on August 31, 2005 regarding the
conditions. The email was urgent and detailed and indicated
that ``The situation is past critical . . . Estimates are
many will die within hours.'' Brown's reply was emblematic of
the administration's entire response to the catastrophe:
``Thanks for the update. Anything specific I need to do or
tweak?'' The Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael
Chertoff, did not declare an emergency, did not mobilize the
federal resources, and seemed to not even know what was
happening on the ground until reporters told him.
On Friday August 26, 2005, Governor Kathleen Blanco
declared a State of Emergency in Louisiana and Governor Haley
Barbour of Mississippi followed suit the next day. Also on
that Saturday, Governor Blanco asked the President to declare
a Federal State of Emergency, and on 28 August 2005, the
Sunday before the storm hit, Mayor Nagin declared a State of
Emergency in New Orleans. This shows that the local
authorities, responding to federal warnings, knew how bad the
destruction was going to be and anticipated being
overwhelmed. Failure to act under these circumstances
demonstrates gross negligence.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and Commander in Chief, and subversive of constitutional
government, to the prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United
States. Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct,
is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
ARTICLE XXXII.--MISLEADING CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERMINING EFFORTS TO ADDRESS GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, ignored the peril to life and property posed by
global climate change, manipulated scientific information and
mishandled protective policy, constituting nonfeasance and
malfeasance in office, abuse of power, dereliction of duty,
and deception of Congress and the American people.
President Bush knew the expected effects of climate change
and the role of human activities in driving climate change.
This knowledge preceded his first Presidential term.
1. During his 2000 Presidential campaign, he promised to
regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
2. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
a global body of hundreds of the world's foremost experts on
climate change, concluded that ``most of observed warming
over last 50 years (is) likely due to increases in greenhouse
gas concentrations due to human activities.'' The Third
Assessment Report projected several effects of climate change
such as continued ``widespread retreat'' of glaciers, an
``increase threats to human health, particularly in lower
income populations, predominantly within tropical/subtropical
countries,'' and ``water shortages.''
3. The grave danger to national security posed by global
climate change was recognized by the Pentagon's Defense
Advanced Planning Research Projects Agency in October of
2003. An agency-commissioned report ``explores how such an
abrupt climate change scenario could potentially de-stabilize
the geo-political environment, leading to skirmishes,
battles, and even war due to resource constraints such as: 1)
Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural
production 2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh
water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters,
causing more frequent floods and droughts 3) Disrupted access
to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess.''
4. A December 2004 paper in Science reviewed 928 studies
published in peer reviewed journals to determine the number
providing evidence against the existence of a link between
anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and climate change.
``Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
position.''
5. The November 2007 Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report showed that global
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gasses have increased
70% between 1970 and 2004, and anthropogenic emissions are
very likely the cause of global climate change. The report
concluded that global climate change could cause the
extinction of 20 to 30 percent of species in unique
ecosystems such as the polar areas and biodiversity hotspots,
increase extreme weather events especially in the developing
world, and have adverse effects on food production and fresh
water availability.
The President has done little to address this most serious
of problems, thus constituting an abuse of power and criminal
neglect. He has also actively endeavored to undermine efforts
by the federal government, states, and other nations to take
action on their own.
1. In March 2001, President Bush announced the U.S. would
not be pursuing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, an
international effort to reduce greenhouse gasses. The United
States is the only industrialized nation that has failed to
ratify the accord.
2. In March of 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote to
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson: ``In August 2003, the Bush
Administration denied a petition to regulate CO2
emissions from motor vehicles by deciding that CO2
was not a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. In April 2007,
the U.S. Supreme Court overruled that determination in
Massachusetts v. EPA. The Supreme Court wrote that `If EPA
makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires
the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant
from new motor vehicles.' The EPA then conducted an extensive
investigation involving 60-70 staff who concluded that
`CO2 emissions endanger both human health and
welfare.' These findings were submitted to the White House,
after which work on the findings and the required regulations
was halted.''
3. A Memo to Members of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform on May 19, 2008 stated ``The record before
the Committee shows: (1) the career staff at EPA unanimously
supported granting California's petition (to be allowed to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks,
consistent with California state law); (2) Stephen Johnson,
the Administrator of EPA, also supported granting
California's petition at least in part; and (3) Administrator
Johnson reversed his position after communications with
officials in the White House.''
The President has suppressed the release of scientific
information related to global climate change, an action which
undermines Congress' ability to legislate and provide
oversight, and which has thwarted efforts to prevent global
climate change despite the serious threat that it poses.
1. In February, 2001, ExxonMobil wrote a memo to the White
House outlining ways to influence the outcome of the Third
Assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. The memo opposed the reelection of Dr. Robert Watson
as the IPCC Chair. The White House then supported an
opposition candidate, who was subsequently elected to replace
Dr. Watson.
2. The New York Times on January 29, 2006, reported that
James Hansen, NASA's senior climate scientist was warned of
``dire consequences'' if he continued to speak out about
global climate change and the need for reducing emissions of
associated gasses. The Times also reported that: ``At climate
laboratories of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, for example, many scientists who routinely
took calls from reporters five years ago can now do so only
if the interview is approved by administration officials in
Washington, and then only if a public affairs officer is
present or on the phone.''
3. In December of 2007, the House Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform issued a report based on 16 months of
investigation and 27,000 pages of documentation. According to
the summary: ``The evidence before the Committee leads to one
inescapable conclusion: the Bush Administration has engaged
in a systematic effort to manipulate climate change science
and mislead policy makers and the public about the dangers of
global warming.'' The report described how the White House
appointed former petroleum industry lobbyist Phil Cooney as
head of the Council on Environmental Quality. The report
states ``There was a systematic White House effort to
minimize the significance of climate change by editing
climate change reports. CEQ Chief of Staff Phil Cooney and
other CEQ officials made at least 294 edits to the
Administration's Strategic Plan of the Climate Change Science
Program to exaggerate or emphasize scientific uncertainties
or to de-emphasize or diminish the importance of the human
role in global warming.''
4. On April 23, 2008, Representative Henry Waxman wrote a
letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L Johnson. In it he
reported: ``Almost 1,600 EPA scientists completed the Union
of Concerned Scientists survey questionnaire. Over 22 percent
of these scientists reported that `selective or incomplete
use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome'
occurred `frequently' or `occasionally' at EPA. Ninety-four
EPA scientists reported being frequently or occasionally
directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical
information from an EPA scientific document. Nearly 200 EPA
scientists said that they have frequently or occasionally
been in situations in which scientists have actively objected
to, resigned from or removed themselves from a project
because of pressure to change scientific findings.''
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President
and subversive of constitutional government, to the prejudice
of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of
the people of the United States. Wherefore, President George
[[Page 12071]]
W. Bush, by such conduct, is guilty of an impeachable offense
warranting removal from office.
Article XXXIII.--REPEATEDLY IGNORED AND FAILED TO RESPOND TO HIGH LEVEL
INTELLIGENCE WARNINGS OF PLANNED TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE US, PRIOR TO
9/11
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, failed in his Constitutional duties to take proper
steps to protect the nation prior to September 11, 2001.
The White House's top counter-terrorism adviser, Richard A.
Clarke, has testified that from the beginning of George W.
Bush's presidency until September 11, 2001, Clarke attempted
unsuccessfully to persuade President Bush to take steps to
protect the nation against terrorism. Clarke sent a
memorandum to then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
on January 24, 2001, ``urgently'' but unsuccessfully
requesting ``a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the
impending al Qaeda attack.''
In April 2001, Clarke was finally granted a meeting, but
only with second-in-command department representatives,
including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who
made light of Clarke's concerns.
Clarke confirms that in June, July, and August 2001, the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned the president in
daily briefings of unprecedented indications that a major al
Qaeda attack was going to happen against the United States
somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. Yet,
Clarke was still unable to convene a cabinet-level meeting to
address the issue.
Condoleezza Rice has testified that George Tenet met with
the president 40 times to warn him that a major al-Qaeda
attack was going to take place, and that in response the
president did not convene any meetings of top officials. At
such meetings, the FBI could have shared information on
possible terrorists enrolled at flight schools. Among the
many preventive steps that could have been taken, the Federal
Aviation Administration, airlines, and airports might have
been put on full alert.
According to Condoleezza Rice, the first and only cabinet-
level meeting prior to 9/11 to discuss the threat of
terrorist attacks took place on September 4, 2001, one week
before the attacks in New York and Washington.
On August 6, 2001, President Bush was presented a
President's Daily Brief (PDB) article titled ``Bin Laden
Determined to Strike in U.S.'' The lead sentence of that PDB
article indicated that Bin Laden and his followers wanted to
``follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi
Yousef and `bring the fighting to America.' '' The article
warned: ``Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are U.S.
citizens--have resided in or traveled to the US for years,
and the group apparently maintains a support structure that
could aid attacks.''
The article cited a ``more sensational threat reporting
that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft,'' but
indicated that the CIA had not been able to corroborate such
reporting. The PDB item included information from the FBI
indicating ``patterns of suspicious activity in this country
consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of
attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings
in New York.'' The article also noted that the CIA and FBI
were investigating ``a call to our embassy in the UAE in May
saying that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US
planning attacks with explosives.''
The president spent the rest of August 6, and almost all
the rest of August 2001 on vacation. There is no evidence
that he called any meetings of his advisers to discuss this
alarming report. When the title and substance of this PDB
article were later reported in the press, then-National
Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice began a sustained campaign
to play down its significance, until the actual text was
eventually released by the White House.
New York Times writer Douglas Jehl, put it this way: ``In a
single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing
delivered to President Bush in August 2001 spells out the
who, hints at the what and points towards the where of the
terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36
days later.''
Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the joint congressional
committee investigating the performance of the U.S.
intelligence community before September 11, 2001, reported in
mid-September 2002 that intelligence reports a year earlier
``reiterated a consistent and constant theme: Osama bin
Laden's intent to launch terrorist attacks inside the United
States.''
That joint inquiry revealed that just two months before
September 11, an intelligence briefing for ``senior
government officials'' predicted a terrorist attack with
these words: ``The attack will be spectacular and designed to
inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests.
Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with
little or no warning.''
Given the White House's insistence on secrecy with regard
to what intelligence was given to President Bush, the joint-
inquiry report does not divulge whether he took part in that
briefing. Even if he did not, it strains credulity to suppose
that those ``senior government officials'' would have kept
its alarming substance from the president.
Again, there is no evidence that the president held any
meetings or took any action to deal with the threats of such
attacks.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President, and subversive of constitutional government, to
the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is
guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
article xxxiv.--obstruction of investigation into the attacks of
september 11, 2001
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, obstructed investigations into the attacks on the
World Trade Center and Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Following September 11, 2001, President Bush and Vice
President Cheney took strong steps to thwart any and all
proposals that the circumstances of the attack be addressed.
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell was forced to renege on
his public promise on September 23 that a ``White Paper''
would be issued to explain the circumstances. Less than two
weeks after that promise, Powell apologized for his
``unfortunate choice of words,'' and explained that Americans
would have to rely on ``information coming out in the press
and in other ways.''
On Sept. 26, 2001, President Bush drove to Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) headquarters in Langley, Virginia,
stood with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet and
said: ``My report to the nation is, we've got the best
intelligence we can possibly have thanks to the men and women
of the C.I.A.'' George Tenet subsequently and falsely claimed
not to have visited the president personally between the
start of Bush's long Crawford vacation and September 11,
2001.
Testifying before the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004,
Tenet answered a question from Commission member Timothy
Roemer by referring to the president's vacation (July 29-
August 30) in Crawford and insisting that he did not see the
president at all in August 2001. ``You never talked with
him?'' Roemer asked. ``No,'' Tenet replied, explaining that
for much of August he too was ``on leave.'' An Agency
spokesman called reporters that same evening to say Tenet had
misspoken, and that Tenet had briefed Bush on August 17 and
31. The spokesman explained that the second briefing took
place after the president had returned to Washington, and
played down the first one, in Crawford, as uneventful.
In his book, At the Center of the Storm, (2007) Tenet
refers to what is almost certainly his August 17 visit to
Crawford as a follow-up to the ``Bin Laden Determined to
Strike in the U.S.'' article in the CIA-prepared President's
Daily Brief of August 6. That briefing was immortalized in a
Time Magazine photo capturing Harriet Myers holding the PDB
open for the president, as two CIA officers sit by. It is the
same briefing to which the president reportedly reacted by
telling the CIA briefer, ``All right, you've covered your ass
now.'' (Ron Suskind, The One-Percent Doctrine, p. 2, 2006).
In At the Center of the Storm, Tenet writes: ``A few weeks
after the August 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to
Crawford to make sure that the president stayed current on
events.''
A White House press release suggests Tenet was also there a
week later, on August 24. According to the August 25, 2001,
release, President Bush, addressing a group of visitors to
Crawford on August 25, told them: ``George Tenet and I,
yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went
right up the canyon.''
In early February 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney warned
then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle that if Congress went
ahead with an investigation, administration officials might
not show up to testify. As pressure grew for an
investigation, the president and vice president agreed to the
establishment of a congressional joint committee to conduct a
``Joint Inquiry.'' Eleanor Hill, Executive Director of the
Inquiry, opened the Joint Inquiry's final public hearing in
mid-September 2002 with the following disclaimer: ``I need to
report that, according to the White House and the Director of
Central
[[Page 12072]]
Intelligence, the president's knowledge of intelligence
information relevant to this inquiry remains classified, even
when the substance of the intelligence information has been
declassified.''
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, also known as
the 9/11 Commission, was created on November 27, 2002,
following the passage of congressional legislation signed
into law by President Bush. The President was asked to
testify before the Commission. He refused to testify except
for one hour in private with only two Commission members,
with no oath administered, with no recording or note taking,
and with the Vice President at his side. Commission Co-Chair
Lee Hamilton has written that he believes the commission was
set up to fail, was underfunded, was rushed, and did not
receive proper cooperation and access to information.
A December 2007 review of classified documents by former
members of the Commission found that the commission had made
repeated and detailed requests to the CIA in 2003 and 2004
for documents and other information about the interrogation
of operatives of Al Qaeda, and had been told falsely by a top
C.I.A. official that the agency had ``produced or made
available for review'' everything that had been requested.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President, and subversive of constitutional government, to
the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is
guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
Article xxxv.--endangering the health of 9/11 first responders
In his conduct while President of the United States, George
W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect,
and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in
violation of his constitutional duty under Article II,
Section 3 of the Constitution ``to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed'', has both personally and acting through
his agents and subordinates, together with the Vice
President, recklessly endangered the health of first
responders, residents, and workers at and near the former
location of the World Trade Center in New York City.
The Inspector General of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) August 21, 2003, report numbered 2003-P-00012
and entitled ``EPA's Response to the World Trade Center
Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement,''
includes the following findings:
``[W]hen EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air
was `safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and
analyses to make such a blanket statement. At that time, air
monitoring data was lacking for several pollutants of
concern, including particulate matter and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Furthermore, The White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) influenced, through the
collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated
to the public through its early press releases when it
convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete
cautionary ones.
``As a result of the White House CEQ's influence, guidance
for cleaning indoor spaces and information about the
potential health effects from WTC debris were not included in
EPA-issued press releases. In addition, based on CEQ's
influence, reassuring information was added to at least one
press release and cautionary information was deleted from
EPA's draft version of that press release . . . The White
House's role in EPA's public communications about WTC
environmental conditions was described in a September 12,
2001, e-mail from the EPA Deputy Administrator's Chief of
Staff to senior EPA officials:
`` `All statements to the media should be cleared through
the NSC [National Security Council] before they are
released.'
``According to the EPA Chief of Staff, one particular CEQ
official was designated to work with EPA to ensure that
clearance was obtained through NSC. The Associate
Administrator for the EPA Office of Communications,
Education, and Media Relations (OCEMR) said that no press
release could be issued for a 3- to 4-week period after
September 11 without approval from the CEQ contact.''
Acting EPA Administrator Marianne Horinko, who sat in on
EPA meetings with the White House, has said in an interview
that the White House played a coordinating role. The National
Security Council played the key role, filtering incoming data
on ground zero air and water, Horinko said: ``I think that
the thinking was, these are experts in WMD (weapons of mass
destruction), so they should have the coordinating role.''
In the cleanup of the Pentagon following September 11,
2001, Occupational Safety and Health Administration laws were
enforced, and no workers became ill. At the World Trade
Center site, the same laws were not enforced.
In the years since the release of the EPA Inspector
General's above-cited report, the Bush Administration has
still not effected a clean-up of the indoor air in apartments
and workspaces near the site.
Screenings conducted at the Mount Sinai Medical Center and
released in the September 10, 2004, Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) of the federal Centers For Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), produced the following results:
``Both upper and lower respiratory problems and mental
health difficulties are widespread among rescue and recovery
workers who dug through the ruins of the World Trade Center
in the days following its destruction in the attack of
September 11, 2001.
``An analysis of the screenings of 1,138 workers and
volunteers who responded to the World Trade Center disaster
found that nearly three-quarters of them experienced new or
worsened upper respiratory problems at some point while
working at Ground Zero. And half of those examined had upper
and/or lower respiratory symptoms that persisted up to the
time of their examinations, an average of eight months after
their WTC efforts ended.''
A larger study released in 2006 found that roughly 70
percent of nearly 10,000 workers tested at Mount Sinai from
2002 to 2004 reported that they had new or substantially
worsened respiratory problems while or after working at
ground zero. This study showed that many of the respiratory
ailments, including sinusitis and asthma, and
gastrointestinal problems related to them, initially reported
by ground zero workers persisted or grew worse over time.
Most of the ground zero workers in the study who reported
trouble breathing while working there were still having those
problems two and a half years later, an indication of chronic
illness unlikely to improve over time.
In all of these actions and decisions, President George W.
Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
President, and subversive of constitutional government, to
the prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President George W. Bush, by such conduct, is
guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from
office.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sutton). The resolution qualifies.
Under the previous order of the House of June 10, the previous
question is ordered without intervening motion except one motion to
refer.
Motion to Refer Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I move that the House refer the
impeachment resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to refer.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have
it.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam 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. Under the previous order of the House of
June 10, further proceedings on this question will be postponed as
though under clause 8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Braley of Iowa (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today after 2
p.m. on account of flooding in district.
Mr. Cummings (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today until 2 p.m.
Mr. Meek of Florida (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today.
____________________
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:)
Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Weiner, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Moran of Kansas) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Broun of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, June 17.
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, for 5 minutes, June 17.
Mr. Burton of Indiana, for 5 minutes, today, June 11 and 12.
[[Page 12073]]
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today and June 11.
Mr. McCotter, for 5 minutes, June 11.
Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Hunter, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Franks of Arizona, for 5 minutes, today, June 11 and 12.
Mr. Price of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Member (at her request) to revise and extend her
remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 12 minutes
a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, June 11, 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:
7042. A letter from the Chairman, Farm Credit
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Eligibility and Scope of Financing; Processing and
Marketing (RIN: 3052-AC33) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
7043. A letter from the OSD Federal Liaison Officer, DoD,
Department of Defense, transmitting the Department's final
rule -- TRICARE; Certain Survivors of Deceased Active Duty
Members; and Adoption Intermediaries [DOD-2006-HA-0194] (RIN:
0720-AB07) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
7044. A letter from the OSD Federal Register Liaison
Officer, DoD, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- User Fees [DoD-2006-OS-0005] (RIN:
0790-AH93) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Armed Services.
7045. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June
3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
7046. A letter from the Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Project Design
and Cost Standards for the Section 202 and Section 811
Programs [Docket No. FR-5097-F-02] (RIN: 2502-AI48) received
June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
7047. A letter from the Chairman and President, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting a report on transactions involving
U.S. exports to Luxembourg pursuant to Section 2(b)(3) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
7048. A letter from the Chairman and President, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting a report on transactions involving
U.S. exports to Brazil pursuant to Section 2(b)(3) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
7049. A letter from the Chairman and President, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting a report on transactions involving
U.S. exports to Mexico pursuant to Section 2(b)(3) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
7050. A letter from the Chairman and President, Export-
Import Bank, transmitting a report on transactions involving
U.S. exports to Mexico pursuant to Section 2(b)(3) of the
Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
7051. A letter from the President, Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, transmitting the Bank's 2007 Annual Report; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
7052. A letter from the Assistant General Counsel for
Regulatory Services, Department of Education, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Demands for Testimony or
Records in Legal Proceedings [Docket ID ED-2007-OS-0138]
received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
7053. A letter from the Deputy Director, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final
rule -- Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans;
Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest
Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits -- received June
3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Education and Labor.
7054. A letter from the Executive Director, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule -- Annual Update of Filing Fees [Docket No. RM08-9-000]
received May 29, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7055. A letter from the Secretary, Securities and Exchange
Commission, transmitting the Commission's final rule --
Definition of Eligible Portfolio Company under the Investment
Company Act of 1940 [Release No. IC-28266; File No. S7-37-04]
(RIN: 3235-AJ31) received May 20, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
7056. A letter from the Associate Director, PP&I,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Rough Diamonds Control Regulations -- received
May 20, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
7057. A letter from the Acting Chief Acquisition Officer &
Senior Procurement Executive, GSA, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Federal
Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2005-040, Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) [FAC 2005-25; FAR Case
2005-040; Item II; Docket 2008-0001, Sequence 01] (RIN: 9000-
AK95) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
7058. A letter from the Acting Chief Acquisition Officer
and Senior Procurement Executive, GSA, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Federal
Acquisition Regulation; FAR Case 2005-040, Electronic
Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS) [FAC 2005-25; FAR Case
2005-040; Item II; Docket 2008-0001, Sequence 01] (RIN: 9000-
AK95) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
7059. A letter from the Director, Office of Personnel
Management, transmitting the Office's final rule --
REPRESENTATIVE RATE; ORDER OF RELEASE FROM COMPETITIVE LEVEL;
ASSIGNMENT RIGHTS (RIN: 3206-AL19) received May 20, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
7060. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Listing,
Endangered Species, Department of the Interior, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Special Rule for the Polar Bear [[FWS-
R7-ES-2008-0027] [1111 FY07 MO-B2] (RIN: 1018-AV79) received
May 29, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
7061. A letter from the Director, Office of Congressional &
Legal Affairs -- Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Gaming on Trust
Lands Acquired After October 17, 1988 (RIN: 1076-AE81)
received May 20, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
7062. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``Duck Stamp Improvement Act
of 2008''; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
7063. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator For
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
Provisions; Weakfish Fishery [Docket No. 070717344-8150-01;
I.D. 041907A] (RIN: 0648-AV44) received June 3, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
7064. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator For
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Allocating Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Fishery Resources;
American Fisheries Act Sideboards [Docket No. 0612242903-
7445-03 and 0612242886-7464-03] (RINs 0648-AU48 and 0648-
AU68) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
7065. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Ocean Perch for Vessels in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Trawl Limited Access Fishery in the Central
Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Management Area [Docket No. 071106673-8011-02] (RIN: 0648-
XH84) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
7066. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels Less Than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA
Using Pot or Hook-and-Line Gear in the Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No. 071106673-8011-
02] (RIN: 0648-XH78) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
7067. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Operations, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
[[Page 12074]]
Fisheries Off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery; Biennial Specifications and Management Measures
[Docket No. 080408542-8615-01] (RIN: 0648-AW63) received June
3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Natural Resources.
7068. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination
on a petition on behalf of a class of workers from the
Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) facility
in Parks Township, Pennsylvania, to be added to the Special
Exposure Cohort (SEC), pursuant to the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000
(EEOICPA); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
7069. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination
on a petition on behalf of a class of workers from the
Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Washington, to be
added to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC), pursuant to the
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Act of 2000 (EEOICPA); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
7070. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination
on a petition on behalf of a class of workers from the
Horizons, Inc. facility in Cleveland, Ohio, to be added to
the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC), pursuant to the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of
2000 (EEOICPA); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
7071. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's determination
on a petition on behalf of a class of workers from the SAM
Laboratories to be added to the Special Exposure Cohort
(SEC), pursuant to the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000 (EEOICPA); to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
7072. A letter from the Acting Chief, Regulatory Management
Division, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Establishment of a Genealogy Program [CIS No. 2074-00; DHS
Docket No. USCIS-2005-0013] (RIN: 1615-AB19) received May 20,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
7073. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's comments on H.R. 4080, a bill
to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a
separate nonimmigrant classification for fashion models; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
7074. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Homeland
Security, transmitting the Department's determination on a
petition on behalf of a class of workers from the Kellex/
Pierpont facility in Jersey City, New Jersey, to be added to
the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC), pursuant to the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of
2000 (EEOICPA); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
7075. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Office of
Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's comments on S. 2829, a bill to
make technical corrections to Section 1244 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA 2008);
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
7076. A letter from the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, transmitting the report of
the Director of the Executive Office for United States
Trustees on the evaluation of instructional classes in
personal financial management for consumer bankruptcy
debtors, pursuant to Public Law 109-8, section 105; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
7077. A letter from the Director, National Legislative
Commission, American Legion, transmitting a copy of the
Legion's financial statements as of December 31, 2007,
pursuant to 36 U.S.C. 1101(4) and 1103; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
7078. A letter from the Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting the Office's Revised Research Plan for the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the Scientific Assessment
of the Effects of Global Change on the United States; to the
Committee on Science and Technology.
7079. A letter from the Associate Administrator for
Aeronautics, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Development
Work for Industry in NASA Wind Tunnels [Notice: (08-045)]
(RIN: 2700-AC81) received June 3, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science and Technology.
7080. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Transportation
Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) Implementation in the
Maritime Sector; Hazardous Materials Endorsement for a
Commercial Driver's License [Docket Nos. TSA-2006-24191;
USCG-2006-24196] (RIN: 1652-AA41) received May 29, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Homeland Security.
7081. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Defense, transmitting a copy of legislative proposals as part
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year
2009; jointly to the Committees on Armed Services and
Oversight and Government Reform.
7082. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior, transmitting
a copy of a draft bill entitled, ``the George Washington
Memorial Parkway Boundary Revision Act''; jointly to the
Committees on Natural Resources and Transportation and
Infrastructure.
7083. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Defense, transmitting a copy of legislative proposals as part
of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year
2009; jointly to the Committees on Armed Services, Foreign
Affairs, and the Budget.
7084. A letter from the General Counsel, Department of
Defense, transmitting the Department's requested legislative
proposals as part of the National Defense Authorization Bill
for Fiscal Year 2009; jointly to the Committees on Armed
Services, Energy and Commerce, Transportation and
Infrastructure, Oversight and Government Reform, the
Judiciary, Veterans' Affairs, Ways and Means, Small Business,
Intelligence (Permanent Select), Foreign Affairs, and
Financial Services.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. RAHALL: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 5541. A
bill to provide a supplemental funding source for
catastrophic emergency wildland fire suppression activities
on Department of the Interior and National Forest System
lands, to require the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to develop a cohesive wildland fire
management strategy, and for other purposes; with an
amendment (Rept. 110-704 Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed.
Mr. DINGELL: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 3754. A
bill to authorize the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to accept, as part of a settlement, diesel
emission reduction Supplemental Environmental Projects, and
for other purposes (Rept. 110-705). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. DINGELL: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1553. A
bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to advance
medical research and treatments into pediatric cancers,
ensure patients and families have access to the current
treatments and information regarding pediatric cancers,
establish a population-based national childhood cancer
database, and promote public awareness of pediatric cancers;
with an amendment (Rept. 110-706). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida: Committee on Rules. House
Resolution 1257. Resolution providing for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6063) to authorize the programs of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other
purposes (Rept. 110-707). Referred to the House Calendar.
____________________
TIME LIMITATION OF REFERRED BILL
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XII the following action was taken by
the Speaker:
H.R. 5541. Referred to the Committees on Agriculture and
the Budget extended for a period ending not later than June
27, 2008.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Broun of Georgia, Mr. Mack, Mr. Lucas, Mrs. Musgrave,
Mr. Burgess, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Hall of
Texas, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Upton, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Gingrey, Ms. Fallin, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Shimkus, Mrs. Myrick, Mrs.
Drake, Mr. Terry, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Buyer, and Mr.
Burton of Indiana):
H.R. 6219. A bill to authorize appropriations for the
Department of Commerce and to prohibit Federal economic
development funds to States that carry out public takings for
private purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Financial Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
[[Page 12075]]
By Mr. KLINE of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. Boehner,
Mr. McKeon, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr.
Walberg, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Barrett of South Carolina, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr.
Hensarling, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Campbell of California,
Mr. Pence, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Goode, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Gingrey, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. David Davis of
Tennessee, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Boustany, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California, Mr. Souder, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Feeney, and
Mr. Shadegg):
H.R. 6220. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 to make non-union training programs eligible for Federal
funding under the ``Green Jobs'' program; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
By Mr. BOOZMAN (for himself and Ms. Herseth Sandlin):
H.R. 6221. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to include in each
contract the Secretary enters for the acquisition of goods
and services a provision that requires the contractee to
comply with the contracting goals and preferences for small
business concerns owned or controlled by veterans, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (for himself and Mr.
Hinchey):
H.R. 6222. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a nonrefundable credit against income tax
liability for gasoline and diesel fuel used in highway
vehicles for nonbusiness purposes; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. HELLER:
H.R. 6223. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain
Bureau of Land Management land in the State of Nevada to the
Las Vegas Motor Speedway, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN:
H.R. 6224. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to conduct a five-year pilot project to test the
feasibility and advisability of expanding the scope of
certain qualifying work-study activities under title 38,
United States Code; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN:
H.R. 6225. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code,
relating to equitable relief with respect to a State or
private employer; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. HIGGINS (for himself, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Israel,
Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Towns, Mr. Walsh of New
York, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Engel, Ms. Clarke, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. King of New York, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
Arcuri, Mr. Hall of New York, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr.
Crowley, Mr. Ackerman, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. Velazquez,
Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Slaughter,
Mr. McNulty, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Ortiz, Mr. Coble, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr.
Young of Alaska, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Stark, Mr. Petri, and
Mr. Dingell):
H.R. 6226. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 300 East 3rd Street in
Jamestown, New York, as the ``Stan Lundine Post Office
Building''; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Ramstad, and
Mr. Thompson of California):
H.R. 6227. A bill to exempt longstanding nonfunctionally-
integrated supporting organizations from certain provisions
of the Pension Protection Act of 2006; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. Grijalva):
H.R. 6228. A bill to ban the use of bisphenol A in food and
beverage containers; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota (for herself, Mr. Walz of
Minnesota, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota,
Mr. Ellison, Mr. Ramstad, Mrs. Bachmann, and Mr.
Kline of Minnesota):
H.R. 6229. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in
North Saint Paul, Minnesota, as the ``Mayor William `Bill'
Sandberg Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. McHENRY:
H.R. 6230. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 to require nationally registered statistical rating
organizations to provide additional disclosures with respect
to the rating of certain structured securities, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. TANCREDO:
H.R. 6231. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
require that any automobile manufactured by a manufacturer
after model year 2018 be an alternative fueled automobile; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. SOUDER (for himself and Mr. Ruppersberger):
H. Con. Res. 369. Concurrent resolution honoring the men
and women of the Drug Enforcement Administration on the
occasion of its 35th anniversary; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mrs. Bono
Mack, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee,
Mr. Ross, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Towns, Ms.
Velazquez, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr.
Brady of Texas, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Clay, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Ms. Lee, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Norton,
Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Carson, Mr. Cleaver,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Everett, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Payne, Mr. Watt, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Berry, Ms. Slaughter, Ms.
Matsui, Mr. Mollohan, Ms. Watson, Mr. Scott of
Virginia, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Moore of
Wisconsin, and Mr. Jackson of Illinois):
H. Con. Res. 370. Concurrent resolution expressing support
for designation of September 2008 as ``Gospel Music Heritage
Month'' and honoring gospel music for its valuable and
longstanding contributions to the culture of the United
States; to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. COLE of Oklahoma:
H. Res. 1255. A resolution honoring Toby Keith's commitment
to members of the Armed Forces; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. EMANUEL:
H. Res. 1256. A resolution electing certain Members to
certain standing committees of the House of Representatives;
considered and agreed to.
By Mr. ARCURI (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Wilson of
Ohio, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Donnelly, Mr.
Lipinski, Mr. Sires, Mr. Payne, Mr. Murphy of
Connecticut, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Israel, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Yarmuth, Mr.
Courtney, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr.
Space, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Lampson, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Hall of New York, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Mahoney of
Florida, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Mitchell, Mr.
Cardoza, and Mr. Rush):
H. Res. 1259. A resolution congratulating the Hamilton
College Continentals on winning the NCAA Division III women's
lacrosse championship; to the Committee on Education and
Labor.
By Ms. BEAN (for herself, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Arcuri, Mr.
Barrow, Ms. Berkley, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Bishop of New
York, Mrs. Blackburn, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr. Boyd of
Florida, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Burton of Indiana,
Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Calvert, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Carnahan, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Chandler, Ms. Clarke, Mr.
Cooper, Mr. Costa, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mrs. Davis of California,
Ms. DeGette, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of
Florida, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Ellsworth,
Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Herseth Sandlin,
Mr. Higgins, Mr. Hill, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms.
Hooley, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Keller, Mr. Kirk,
Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr.
Lampson, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Markey, Mr.
Matheson, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr.
Melancon, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Moore
of Kansas, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Perlmutter,
Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Ross, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Loretta Sanchez
of California, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms. Schakowsky, Ms.
Schwartz, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Sestak, Ms. Shea-
Porter, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Sires, Ms. Solis, Mr. Space,
Mr. Spratt, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Towns, Mr. Upton, Mr. Van
Hollen, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Watson, Mr. Watt,
Mr. Waxman, Mr. Welch of Vermont, and Mr. Wolf):
H. Res. 1260. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of ``National Internet Safety Month''; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. DeGETTE:
H. Res. 1261. A resolution congratulating East High School
in Denver, Colorado, on
[[Page 12076]]
winning the 2008 ``We the People: The Citizen and the
Constitution'' national competition; to the Committee on
Education and Labor.
____________________
MEMORIALS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as
follows:
291. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the House of
Representatives of the State of Hawaii, relative to House
Resolution No. 85 approving and authorizing the establishment
of a state-province affiliation between the State of Hawaii
of the United States of America and the Province of Negros
Oriental of the Republic of the Philippines; to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
292. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 53
urging the President of the United States to agree to an
economy-wide reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions and to
commit the United States to a binding international treaty
that would result in a significant and rapid global reduction
in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration; to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
293. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of
Hawaii, relative to House Concurrent Resolution No. 16
requesting that the Congress of the United States ratify the
United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of
discrimination against women; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.
294. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 230
urging the prevention of the sale of oil and gas leases and
of drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Regions of
Alaska; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
295. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 71
urging the President of the United States and the Congress of
the United States to enact legislation to confer priority
status to children born to Department of Defense personnel
and foreign women during and up to to nine months after
deployment in order to facilitate and expediate the
immigration of these children and women to the United States;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
296. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 86
urging the President of the United States, the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to include the
Republic of Korea in the Visa Waiver Program; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
297. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 154
urging the Congress of the United States to amend the
definition of ``Amerasians'' in the Amerasians Immigration
Act of 1982; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
298. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 19
urging the Congress of the United States to enact legislation
to exempt children of Filipino World War II Veterans from
immigrant visa limits; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
299. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 91
requesting that the Congress of the United States and the
President of the United States enact the Filipino American
Veterans Equity Act of 2007; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
300. Also, a memorial of the House of Representatives of
the State of Hawaii, relative to House Resolution No. 110
supporting assistance for persons present in the United
States under the Compacts of Free Association; jointly to the
Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and
Agriculture.
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII,
Mrs. MALONEY of New York introduced a bill (H.R. 6232) for
the relief of Richard M. Barlow of Bozeman, Montana; which
was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 17: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 154: Mr. Wexler, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Yarmuth,
Mr. Costello, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Regula.
H.R. 367: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 503: Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
H.R. 670: Mr. Kirk.
H.R. 769: Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 780: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 821: Mr. Wexler, Ms. Sutton, and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 897: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 898: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 971: Mr. Reynolds.
H.R. 997: Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 1014: Mr. Ramstad.
H.R. 1190: Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 1280: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 1283: Ms. Speier.
H.R. 1420: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi.
H.R. 1532: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1645: Ms. Waters.
H.R. 1691: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 1732: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 1738: Mr. Holden.
H.R. 1820: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 1841: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 1845: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1846: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 1869: Mrs. McMorris Rodgers.
H.R. 1932: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.
H.R. 1952: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 2032: Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 2045: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
H.R. 2122: Mr. Murphy of Connecticut and Mr. Young of
Alaska.
H.R. 2205: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H.R. 2275: Mr. Manzullo and Ms. Watson.
H.R. 2279: Mr. Boehner, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Boustany,
Mr. Blunt, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Cole of
Oklahoma, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, Mr. McHenry, and Mr. Camp
of Michigan.
H.R. 2289: Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 2343: Mr. Inslee, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Loebsack, and Ms.
Hirono.
H.R. 2353: Mr. Boren.
H.R. 2357: Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 2493: Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Boehner, Mr.
Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Bonner, and Mr. Camp of
Michigan.
H.R. 2832: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 2833: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 2914: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 2923: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 2926: Mr. Stark, Mr. Carson, and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2991: Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 3089: Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Blunt, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Carter, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Forbes, Mr.
Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Roskam, Mr. Camp
of Michigan, and Mr. Gary G. Miller of California.
H.R. 3112: Mr. Welch of Vermont.
H.R. 3144: Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida and Mr. Souder.
H.R. 3157: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 3232: Ms. Norton, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, and Mr.
Burgess.
H.R. 3234: Mr. Thornberry.
H.R. 3267: Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 3289: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and
Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3334: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California and Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 3404: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 3423: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 3457: Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky.
H.R. 3544: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 3642: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Ms. Clarke.
H.R. 3652: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.
H.R. 3797: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 4007: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 4014: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 4015: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 4016: Mr. Higgins.
H.R. 4026: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 4065: Mr. Calvert.
H.R. 4091: Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 4093: Mrs. Napolitano and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 4113: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 4116: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 4141: Ms. Fallin and Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 4229: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 4231: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 4264: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 4544: Mr. Akin, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Culberson.
H.R. 4775: Mr. Blumenauer, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Rothman, Mr.
Ackerman, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and
Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 4934: Mr. Gutierrez and Mr. Carson.
H.R. 4935: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H.R. 4987: Mr. Brown of South Carolina and Mr. David Davis
of Tennessee.
H.R. 5057: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 5229: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 5466: Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 5496: Mr. Waxman.
H.R. 5575: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 5580: Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H.R. 5590: Mr. Manzullo and Mr. Honda.
H.R. 5606: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
H.R. 5646: Mr. Duncan.
H.R. 5705: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 5723: Mr. Hodes.
H.R. 5733: Mr. Walsh of New York.
H.R. 5734: Mr. McIntyre, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, and
Mr. Berry.
H.R. 5748: Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 5774: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Allen,
Mr. Grijalva, and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 5782: Mr. Johnson of Illinois.
H.R. 5793: Mr. Higgins and Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 5797: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 5814: Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 5821: Ms. Fallin.
H.R. 5835: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 5873: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 5881: Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H.R. 5882: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, and Mr. Pastor.
[[Page 12077]]
H.R. 5886: Mr. Shadegg.
H.R. 5892: Mr. Gordon, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 5914: Mr. Hodes.
H.R. 5921: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr.
Pastor.
H.R. 5932: Mr. Alexander, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Cazayoux, Mr.
Boustany, and Mr. McCrery.
H.R. 5933: Mr. Alexander, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Cazayoux, Mr.
Boustany, and Mr. McCrery.
H.R. 5935: Mr. Murtha.
H.R. 5954: Mr. Costello.
H.R. 5971: Mr. Wittman of Virginia and Mr. Gallegly.
H.R. 5976: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 5984: Mr. Bachus, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 6020: Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, and Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 6039: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr.
Pastor.
H.R. 6045: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 6053: Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 6057: Mr. Carnahan and Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 6076: Mr. Rangel, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 6088: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 6101: Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
H.R. 6104: Mr. Wu, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Gerlach,
Ms. Shea-Porter, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr.
Baca, and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 6107: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Everett, Mr. Roskam, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Camp of Michigan, and Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 6108: Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Boustany, Mr.
Kline of Minnesota, and Mr. Camp of Michigan.
H.R. 6120: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 6126: Mr. Cohen.
H.R. 6136: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 6140: Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 6146: Mr. Herger.
H.R. 6189: Mrs. Musgrave.
H.R. 6207: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 6208: Mr. Hulshof.
H.R. 6214: Mr. Walsh of New York and Mr. Reynolds.
H.J. Res. 39: Mr. Roskam.
H.J. Res. 89: Mr. Wittman of Virginia, Mr. David Davis of
Tennessee, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Rogers of
Alabama, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Duncan, and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H. Con. Res. 244: Mrs. Bachmann.
H. Con. Res. 267: Mrs. Biggert.
H. Con. Res. 332: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota and Mr. Price
of North Carolina.
H. Con. Res. 336: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H. Con. Res. 360: Ms. Schakowsky, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr.
Davis of Illinois.
H. Con. Res. 361: Ms. Lee, Mr. Kirk, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Fortuno, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, and Mr. Bishop of New
York.
H. Con. Res. 362: Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Cannon, Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr.
Lamborn, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Reichert, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Carney, Mr.
Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Boren, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Bonner,
Mr. Michaud, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Smith of New Jersey,
Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Gary G. Miller of California,
Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Wittman of Virginia, Mr. Langevin,
Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr.
Reynolds, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Lampson, and Mr.
Matheson.
H. Con. Res. 364: Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Sestak.
H. Con. Res. 365: Mr. Doggett, Mr. Pomeroy, Mrs. Jones of
Ohio, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Camp of Michigan, Mr. Kind, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Inslee, Ms. Hooley, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Spratt,
Mr. Tanner, Mr. Clay, Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Arcuri, and
Ms. Roybal-Allard.
H. Con. Res. 367: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Boustany, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Ehlers,
Mr. Roskam, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Klein of Florida, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Boucher, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, and Mr. Dicks.
H. Res. 333: Mr. Wexler.
H. Res. 758: Mr. Shadegg.
H. Res. 881: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Goode, Ms. Fallin, and Mr.
Jones of North Carolina.
H. Res. 937: Mr. McCotter.
H. Res. 1008: Mr. Shays and Ms. Bordallo.
H. Res. 1078: Mrs. Davis of California.
H. Res. 1080: Mr. Bachus.
H. Res. 1159: Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Barrow, Mr. Miller of
North Carolina, and Mr. Courtney.
H. Res. 1191: Mr. Kennedy.
H. Res. 1202: Mr. Wu.
H. Res. 1204: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H. Res. 1230: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Inglis of
South Carolina, and Mr. Allen.
H. Res. 1231: Ms. Sutton, Mr. Towns, Mr. Altmire, and Mr.
Donnelly.
H. Res. 1232: Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Rush, Mr. Smith of
New Jersey, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. Shays.
H. Res. 1235: Mr. Wittman of Virginia and Mr. Jefferson.
H. Res. 1239: Mr. Saxton and Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida.
H. Res. 1242: Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Lee, and Mr.
Hinchey.
H. Res. 1245: Mr. Holt, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Lewis
of Georgia, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, and Ms. Woolsey.
H. Res. 1246: Mr. Farr, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Jackson-Lee
of Texas, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Payne.
H. Res. 1248: Mr. Herger.
H. Res. 1249: Mr. Nadler, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Kagen, Mr.
Boren, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Olver, Mr.
Yarmuth, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Schakowsky, Mrs. Jones of
Ohio, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Thompson
of Mississippi, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Schiff, Ms. Castor, Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Farr, Mr. Costa, Mr. Carson, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Larson of
Connecticut, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Mr. Waxman, Mr. Meeks of New York, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Mr. Inslee, Mr. Israel, Ms. DeLauro, and Ms. Wasserman
Schultz.
____________________
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:
The amendment to be offered by Representative Bart Gordon
or a designee to H.R. 6063, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008, does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or
limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or
9(f) of rule XXI.
[[Page 12078]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORING WILLIAM LOBBINS III
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize William
Lobbins III of Parkville, Missouri. William is a very special young man
who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership
by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1395, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
William has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years William has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending William
Lobbins III for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
CLEARWATER FIREFIGHTER PAT CONREY HONORS FALLEN COMRADES
______
HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Clearwater
firefighter Pat Conrey, who I am proud to represent, for the remarkable
tribute he has paid to a fellow firefighter who fell in the line of
duty.
In his effort to raise money for the family of Oscar Armstrong III, a
Cincinnati firefighter who died fighting a fire in March 2003, leaving
behind a pregnant fiancee and two young children, Mr. Conrey did an
extraordinary thing. He donned 45 pounds of firefighting gear and ran
the entire 26.2 miles of the Flying Pig Marathon held in Cincinnati
last May 4th.
Pat's caring and compassion for others were on full display that day.
After stopping along the route to pay respect to the Armstrong family,
Pat and a fellow firefighter resumed running and soon came upon another
runner who collapsed on the pavement from an apparent heart attack. Pat
and his partner in the race, Joe Arnold, performed emergency CPR on the
fallen runner until an ambulance could arrive.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to say that Pat once again resumed running
and completed the marathon in 5 hours and 26 minutes. During that time,
he demonstrated to the people of Cincinnati the compassion, courage and
heroism that our Nation's firefighters exhibit every day in our
communities. Following my remarks, I will include for my colleagues the
full story of Pat Conrey's run as reported by Terry Tomalin in The St.
Petersburg Times.
In closing, please join me in saying thank you to Pat for his moving
tribute to a fallen firefighter and for his inspiring story of selfless
service to the people of Clearwater, Florida.
[From the St. Petersburg Times, May 29, 2008]
Firefighter Gears Up To Honor the Fallen
(By Terry Tomalin)
Clearwater firefighter Pat Conrey started out wanting to
honor a fallen comrade. By the time it was over, his quest
encompassed 26.2 miles, flying pigs, and ultimately, life and
death.
Conrey had heard the story of Cincinnati firefighter Oscar
Armstrong III, who died battling a blaze in March 2003,
leaving behind a pregnant fiancee and two children.
He decided to run Cincinnati's Flying Pig Marathon on May 4
in full firefighting gear to raise money for Armstrong's
family.
``Firefighters have this special bond,'' Conrey said.
``When one of us dies, we all feel it.''
Conrey, who has completed 10 marathons, ran the Times
Turkey Trot in Clearwater in 45 pounds of gear last year to
raise money for families of fallen firefighters.
``When you run in firefighter equipment, you get people's
attention,'' he said.
But running in full gear isn't that glamorous.
``It was hot--real hot,'' Conrey said. ``You have to drink
a lot of water.''
The 40-year-old Conrey, Clearwater's firefighter of the
year in 2007, trained for months, logging several 13-mile
runs in his bunker coat, bunker pants, air pack and helmet.
``That is pretty out there,'' said local running coach Joe
Burgasser. ``You don't want to carry any extra weight. I
would not recommend that for any sane person.''
Conrey, who earlier this year finished a 50-mile run
through Withlacoochee State Forest in 10 hours and 23
minutes, is used to people thinking he's crazy.
``I love it,'' he said.
A month before the marathon, Conrey learned two other
Cincinnati-area firefighters also had died in the line of
duty.
``That made me want to make sure that I finished even
more,'' Conrey said. ``I would run for all of them.''
Word spread through the Cincinnati firefighting community
that a crazy man from Clearwater was running for the families
of the fallen.
``It really touched everyone,'' said Joe Arnold, a
Cincinnati firefighter who ran part of the race, minus the
gear, with Conrey. ``To think this guy would come all this
way and run a marathon in his turnout gear for people he had
never met . . . that is what it is all about.''
About eight miles into the marathon, Conrey and a dozen
other firefighters stopped at a fire station to pay their
respects to Armstrong's family.
``We didn't know they would be there,'' Conrey said.
``There were lots of hugs, some tears. It was very
emotional.''
The unexpected stop put the firefighters behind schedule.
While they were talking, a man named Bobby Edwards, a 10-year
Flying Pig veteran, ran by.
Once they resumed running, the firefighters hadn't gotten a
mile down the road when they came across Edwards collapsed on
the pavement, a victim of an apparent heart attack.
``When I got there I said, `It is time to go to work
boys,'' Conrey said.
Arnold performed chest compressions on the 55-year-old
runner as the rest of the group assisted.
``If we hadn't stopped to talk, we would have been in front
of him,'' Arnold said. ``It is little things like that make
being a firefighter so special.''
Conrey, who despite the gear and stops covered the course
in 5 hours, 26 minutes, said he is still amazed at the
difference a few minutes can make.
``When you do what we do for a living, you realize how
precious time really is,'' he said. ``I am glad I was there
to help make a difference.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO COLONEL LEAH WALLER
______
HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Leah Waller, recently awarded the title of 2007-2008 Baltimore City
Teacher of the Year. Mrs. Waller has been a teacher with the Baltimore
City Public School System for eight years, teaching Kindergarten and
first grade at Maree G. Farring Elementary School.
When she's not teaching at Farring Elementary, Mrs. Waller has taught
Summer School and tutored at the Jemicy School for Dyslexic Children.
She has served as a mentor teacher for student teachers and new
teachers. In addition, she has worked closely with the Children's
Literacy Initiative and was selected to be a Model Classroom for
Baltimore City.
Always well prepared for daily instruction, Mrs. Waller utilizes the
curriculum and Baltimore City Public School System mandated programs in
an effective and engaging way. In Mrs. Waller's classroom, lessons are
thoroughly developed with the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learner
in mind. Skills and concepts are successfully mastered through a
variety of strategies and techniques to ensure full comprehension from
the students.
The individual needs of all students are met in Mrs. Waller's
classroom. Assessment data is consistently analyzed to diagnose student
strengths and areas for concern. This data is analyzed to help drive
instruction in the most beneficial way. Because of the active
participation in the learning process, the environment in Mrs. Waller's
classroom is very conducive to learning. She holds her students to
[[Page 12079]]
the highest expectations and creates an atmosphere of mutual respect
between the teacher and students.
Mrs. Waller's professional responsibilities are fulfilled with great
care. She maintains an organized recordkeeping system that monitors
individual student achievement and progress. Constantly interacting
with students, parents, colleagues, and administrators, Mrs. Waller
works collaboratively to ensure the academic success and social
development of her students.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Leah Waller
in her acceptance of the 2007-2008 Baltimore City Teacher of the Year
Award. Her legacy as a dedicated, enthusiastic educator will be forever
remembered by the grateful students who walk through her classroom
doors. It is with great pride that I congratulate Leah Waller on her
exemplary career in education and her outstanding performance at Maree
G. Farring Elementary School in Baltimore City.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JERRY WELLER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the
Record votes I would have cast had I been present for rollcall votes
361 through 369. I was absent on part of the day Thursday, May 22, and
Tuesday, June 3, due to personal reasons.
If I were present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 361,
``nay'' on rollcall vote 362, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 363, ``yea'' on
rollcall vote 364, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 365, ``yea'' on rollcall
vote 366, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 367, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 368,
and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 369.
____________________
GUYANA'S 42ND BIRTHDAY: MUCH TO CELEBRATE, QUITE A LOT TO HOPE FOR
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Guyana's
42nd anniversary of independence.
Guyana achieved independence on May 26, 1966, and became the Co-
operative Republic of Guyana on February 23, 1970, with a new
constitution. Guyana is a located on the northern coast of South
America between Venezuela, Brazil, and Suriname. It is the lone
English-speaking nation on the South American mainland, a country of
83,000 square miles, dense tropical forests, and 800,000 people.
This former British colony is rich in human resources, bauxite, gold
and arable land. The young country had promising expectations but
success was not immediately attained. In fact, Guyana, at times, is
described as one of the poorest countries in the Western Hemisphere and
qualifies for debt concessions through the global initiative to reduce
burden on the world's highly indebted poor countries.
After years of economic decline, failure to maintain its
infrastructure, political conflict between Afro and Indo Guyanese,
Guyana's largest ethnic groups, and factors that fueled an exodus of
its brightest, the country needed reform. Today, it is rebuilding both
its economy and infrastructure and with prospects of finding large
deposits of oil, Guyana now has the potential for growth and prosperity
expected of it since the 1960s.
Guyana still faces many obstacles today. Earlier this year, two
massacres took the lives of more than 20 men, women and children but a
period of relative calm has followed. Yes, crime and violence remain a
serious problem as they do elsewhere in the Caribbean.
The latter is the dichotomous image that Guyana presents to the world
as it celebrates its 42nd anniversary of independence.
As a member of the international community, Guyana has made important
contributions to the resolutions of major conflicts around the world
through its participation in the United Nations Security Council, in
the Organization of American States, on the World Court and in other
global bodies.
This anniversary offers us an occasion to thank the people of Guyana
for their strength, their courage, and their contributions to our
global community. So, on this anniversary of independence, I stand in
camaraderie with the Guyanese people to celebrate and appreciate the
growth and change of Guyana.
____________________
CONGRATULATING TEXAS' EXEMPLARY CHILDREN'S HOSPITALS
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
outstanding accomplishments of our leading Texas hospitals. Texas
Children's Hospital in Houston, Children's Medical Center in Dallas,
Children's Cancer Hospital at M.D. Anderson in Houston, and Cook
Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth were recently recognized as
among our nation's top hospitals by U.S. News and World Report.
Texas Children's Hospital in Houston was ranked sixth in the country
in general pediatrics, third in heart surgery, and in the top five of
several other specialties. Cook Children's Medical Center in Fort Worth
was ranked 29th nationwide for its respiratory disorders specialty.
Children's Medical Center in Dallas was ranked 15th among cancer
specialties, and ranked in the Top 30 on four other categories as well,
including General Pediatrics and Digestive Disorders. Children's Cancer
Hospital at M.D. Anderson in Houston was ranked 21st among cancer
specialties.
The U.S. News rankings were based on surveys of pediatricians,
outcome of patient care including surgeries, and care-related measures
including nurse staffing, availability of important technologies, and
patient volume.
As a physician, it is inspiring to see that the medical profession,
and specifically the hospitals and doctors serving Texas, are so
adamantly dedicated to their service and are able to provide such
exceptional care to our nation's children. Health care affects every
facet of our lives, and America's devotion to innovation and
advancements in medicine is vital in maintaining our position as having
the best health care system in the world.
Madam Speaker, it is with honor today that I rise and extend my
sincerest congratulations to these outstanding children's hospitals in
Texas. It is my hope that they will continue to lead the way in
pediatric care, maintaining the discipline, focus, and compassion that
has earned them their reputations for excellence.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MR. CORNELIUS ALLEN
______
HON. DANNY K. DAVIS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute Mr.
Cornelius Allen who passed away on May 28, 2008; and an individual whom
I learned was my cousin a few years ago.
Madam Speaker, Cornelius Allen was one of the friendiest and most
delightful persons I have known. Cornelius was born on October 13,
1928, in Gary, Indiana to the parentage of Mr. Diston and Mrs. Addie P.
Allen. Mr. Allen attended high school at Oakwood Academy in Huntsville,
Alabama; graduating with the class of 1947. He was then drafted into
the United States Army and served as a private first class until
honorable discharged in 1952, and remained in the reserve until 1957.
In 1955, Cornelius joined the Chicago Transit Authority and quickly
became an Ambassador of Goodwill as he often spoke with passengers and
exhibited friendship to school children. After thirty years of loyal
service to the Chicago Transit Authority, Mr. Allen retired and spent
the rest of his life doing good deeds.
Cornelius Allen was a real proponent of education and encouraged
young people to take advantage of every educational opportunity
available to them. He was family centered and exhibited great pride in
family history, tradition and unity.
To Cornelius's closest relatives, Dell Allen and wife Debbie, his
daughters Addie Allen, grandchildren, Marcus Allen, Dell `Rome' Allen,
Justus Cornelius Allen Pugh, great grandchildren Cameron Allen, Lyndon
Allen and Lucas Allen; his brother Ray Shepherd and Rosenwald (Eunice)
Allen Sr. and his sister, Mary Ann Guyton, I say you have been blessed
to have such a great soul to be an intimate part of your life.
Cornelius was a good man whose footsteps were ordered by the Lord and
just as he brought joy to your lives, he brought joy to countless
others.
May he rest in peace.
[[Page 12080]]
____________________
IN HONOR OF DR. DAVID HALE, A 2008 HEALTH CARE HERO OF MINNESOTA
______
HON. MICHELE BACHMANN
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. David
Hale, Chief of Staff and ER Medical Director at Woodwinds Health
Campus, for being named a 2008 Health Care Hero by the Twin Cities
Business Magazine. A modem day hero not only in his community, but as
far away as Iraq, Dr. Hale's selfless service and dedication to his
work have earned him the respect and admiration of his patients and
colleagues spread throughout the world.
Dr. David Hale has earned the reputation as a giant in his field. In
fact, one distinguished colleague has even said, ``The world is a
better place because of Dr. Hale.'' After hearing his long record of
accomplishment, you will surely agree.
As an emergency medicine physician, Dr. Hale is known for his caring
and compassionate demeanor towards patients and for his leadership in
hospital patient services. Some suggest he is the reason Woodwinds
receives some of the highest patient satisfaction scores not only in
Minnesota, but across the country.
If that was not enough, Dr. Hale is a Major in the Minnesota National
Guard and has completed two tours of duty in Iraq. Among his military
honors, Dr. Hale earned a Bronze Medal Star in March 2007, an Army
Commendation Medal in March 2005, an Army Achievement Medal in August
2003, a National Defense Service Medal, a Global War on Terror
Expeditionary Medal and many other awards for his outstanding military
service.
Even more amazing are the contributions he has made on the
humanitarian front during his time in Iraq. During his first tour of
duty, Dr. Hale stm1ed an international humanitarian effort to teach
basic 'tnedical care to Iraqis, a program that still exists today.
During his second tour in Iraq, he expanded his efforts to provide 400
first aid kits and midwife kits to Iraqi women and children, a gesture
well received by Iraqi villagers and soldiers alike.
Now back in Minnesota, Dr, Hale is focused on helping veterans
returning home from war, many of whom suffered traumatic injuries on
the battlefield.
Madam Speaker, it is my honor to rise today to celebrate Dr. David
Hale's extraordinary and selfless career of service. His contributions
to his community, the state of Minnesota, and the country of Iraq make
him a distinguished patriot, and make us all proud to be Americans. I
stand today and join his family, friends, and colleagues in wishing him
a long and successful career.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF HIGHLAND PARK TOWN ADMINISTRATOR GEORGE PATTERSON
______
HON. PETE SESSIONS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Highland Park Town
Administrator George Patterson.
After graduating from Texas Tech University, he began his public
service career as an Administrative Aide with the City of Lubbock. He
then moved on to become the City Manager for Pecos City and Snyder
before accepting the position of Town Administrator with Highland Park
in 1979. George will be retiring on June 24, 2008 with twenty-nine
years of dedicated service to Highland Park.
During his tenure, he has carefully managed and led his staff by
example. With his vision and leadership skills, Highland Park is a
better and safer community. His commitment to public service extended
beyond the workplace. He is actively involved in numerous professional
and community organizations such as the Texas City Managers Association
and the Rotary Club. George leaves a legacy of civic duty that will be
greatly missed.
Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing
our best wishes to him and his family on this special day.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF RYAN STEWART
______
HON. BILL SALI
of idaho
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. SALI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Ryan Stewart
of Boise, ID.
Ryan is representing Idaho as youth governor during the annual YMCA
National Youth Governors' Conference here in Washington, DC.
I am proud of Ryan's commitment and involvement in this program. Ryan
was elected youth governor after campaigning in Idaho's youth and
government program. This is a hands-on program dedicated to educating
high school students on how state government operates. Ryan
participated in a Regional Convention giving speeches and ultimately
being elected to his current position.
I am honored to take the opportunity to recognize Ryan. His
involvement in the YMCA program is a great way for him to learn how our
government functions. Ryan is an example to his peers and I wish him
all the best for a successful year as youth governor in Idaho.
____________________
PLATTE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize the
outstanding achievements of the Platte County Economic Development
Council (PCEDC) of Platte County, Missouri. Burdette ``Pete''
Fullerton, Executive Director, has successfully guided the EDC, and I
am honored to help celebrate their 20th Anniversary on June 20, 2008.
This prestigious recognition is the culmination of twenty years of
dedicated work to continuously improve and enhance our community.
The Platte County EDC serves as an authoritative voice in the
community on economic development and related issues through an
effective program of professional development, public policy,
marketing, and communications. The EDC has assisted in several local
projects over the past 20 years, including ADT Security Services, Citi
Cards, Harley-Davidson Motor Company, KCI Expo Center, Lifetouch
Publishing, Argosy Casino Hotel and Spa, Multivac, The National Golf
Club, Tiffany Greens Golf Club, and Zona Rosa.
Pete Fullerton is responsible for the growth of this non-profit
organization that promotes economic development in Platte County,
Missouri. Pete has worked diligently on behalf of EDC to build a
partnership between public and private sectors and has assisted in the
successful completion of 127 projects. The PCEDC has helped to create
over 11,000 new jobs for Platte County.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join me in applauding the Platte County
Economic Development Council of Platte County, Missouri for its hard
work and dedication. Since the EDC began, it has served as a resource
to its investors and the community. I want to thank Pete Fullerton for
all of his work and applaud him for his accomplishments with the Platte
County EDC.
____________________
DUNEDIN HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL TEAM WINS THE FLORIDA STATE CLASS 5A
CHAMPIONSHIP
______
HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is with much pride that I
rise today to congratulate the Dunedin High School Baseball team for
winning the Florida State Class 5A Championship. The Falcons of
Dunedin, who I have the privilege to represent, won the championship in
an extra innings showdown against the South Fork Bulldogs.
The Falcons won the championship in a ten inning marathon, the
longest Florida State baseball championship game since 1997. The
defense and pitching were excellent, keeping the score tied at two runs
apiece until Max Priest scored the winning run for Dunedin on a Max
Kreuter single.
It was only through a season of hard work--both on and off of the
field--that the Falcons finished with a 26-6 record on their way to the
school's first state baseball title in 44 years. It is a testament to
the character of these young men, and they deserve to be congratulated.
But let us not forget to send our congratulations to Coach Tom Hilbert
who worked tirelessly as a coach and as a mentor to the team. I would
also like to congratulate the parents of the players, as well as the
teachers,
[[Page 12081]]
administrators and the staff of Dunedin High School for doing a
fantastic job of raising and encouraging these exceptional student--
athletes. Following my remarks, I will include for my colleagues the
full story of Dunedin's Baseball Championship as reported by The St.
Petersburg Times.
Madam Speaker, in closing, please join me in congratulating the
Dunedin High School Falcons for their outstanding achievement in
winning the Florida State Baseball Championship.
[From the St. Petersburg Times, May 15, 2008]
Long Wait Is Over: Dunedin Wins Title
Sarasota--It began the moment the ball disappeared into
Cammeron Fisher's glove. Seconds later, a swarm of triumphant
Dunedin players rushed toward the mound to celebrate a 3-2
victory and the school's first state baseball title in 44
years.
``This is something you dream about,'' Fisher said. ``To
make the final out is unbelievable, especially going through
so many ups and downs in a game like this.''
There already were lingering memories--of the heart-
wrenching moments in the seventh inning, of the nail-biting
rally in extra innings, of a game snatched from defeat--that
the players swore they never doubted.
The winning run scored in the top of the 10th inning when
Max Kreuter singled in Max Priest against Stuart South Fork.
The two played the longest championship game since 1997.
``It was a little nerve-racking, but we have so many bats
in this lineup that we knew we had a chance,'' Kreuter said.
But this game was won with defense and pitching.
The Falcons had a two-run lead then watched it disappear
when the Bulldogs scored a run each in the third and fifth
innings to tie it.
In the seventh, South Fork (27-6) had runners on first and
third with no outs. The Falcons walked the next runner to
load the bases.
At that point, Dunedin was desperate to win--and keep its
state title hopes from vanishing.
``We were on the edge of our seats at that point,'' Dunedin
coach Tom Hilbert said. ``Our backs were against the wall.
But we were able to maintain our composure.''
Slowly, the Falcons (26-6) found a way to wiggle out of the
jam.
Alex Norris, who came on in relief of Clay Kollenbaum, got
the first and only batter he faced to ground out.
Jake Rogers came in next and got the next two batters to
strike out and fly out.
``It was just incredible to come out of that the way we
did,'' Rogers said. ``I had so much adrenaline going.''
Beneath the noise, tension and pressure, Rogers emerged
more as a survivor than a closer.
With so much at stake, Rogers knew he couldn't afford to
make mistakes. He escaped unharmed, throwing 3\1/3\ innings
after pitching just three before Thursday's appearance.
``Jake was just phenomenal,'' Hilbert said. ``It was a real
gutsy performance.''
It remained scoreless through the next three innings.
Then the Falcons, after squandering so many chances, made
something happen in the 10th. Priest led off the inning by
drawing a walk, then moved to second on a sacrifice bunt by
Mike Kumbat and advanced to third on a wild pitch. Priest
scored on Kreuter's single.
Rogers then finished things off. The moment Fisher caught
the ball, Rogers sprung off the mound, shook his fist,
twirled in a crazy leap and came down to earth knowing he
would be able to sleep.
``I think all of us are going to pass out on the bus on the
ride home,'' Rogers said. ``It was such a draining game, so
full of emotions.
``But it was so worth it to win like this.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO COLONEL CHRISTINE ROLAND
______
HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Christine Roland, recently awarded the title of 2007-2008 Harford
County Teacher of the Year. Mrs. Roland has been a teacher with Harford
County Public Schools for five years, teaching Biology and Forensic
Science at Edgewood High School.
Born and raised in Switzerland, Mrs. Roland earned a degree in
advertising and public relations and became fluent in three languages
before she moved to the United States. She has since earned a
bachelor's degree in Biology from Towson University, a Certification in
Education, and is currently working on her master's degree in Biology.
Thanks to her unique background and teaching style, her bright,
inviting classroom and original lessons keep her students active and
engaged in the classroom. Using her background in advertising, Mrs.
Roland packages her lessons and activities in an appealing and creative
way. Her enthusiastic teachings inspire and motivate her students to
put effort into their work and truly absorb the class material.
Mrs. Roland goes the extra mile when it comes to helping her students
succeed. Appreciating that biology can be a difficult subject, Mrs.
Roland acknowledges all student achievement. She evaluates student
understanding and provides immediate feedback. Her students know that
she will not move on until there is a basic understanding of every
concept. The projects and activities she assigns are challenging and
diverse so every student can feel a sense of accomplishment. Mrs.
Roland makes herself available to students and parents before and after
school, as well as through e-mail in the evenings should a student need
assistance with an assignment.
Mrs. Roland is eager to attend relevant conferences and meetings to
enhance her professional development. She plays a major role on the
Technology Steering Committee and is actively involved in the
curriculum writing for many subjects. She initiated a new course in
forensic science for Harford County, received approval and wrote the
entire curriculum. The course is now part of the county curriculum and
she is working on staff development for the teachers.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Christine
Roland in her acceptance of the 2007-2008 Harford County Teacher of the
Year Award. Her legacy as a dedicated, enthusiastic teacher will be
forever remembered by the appreciative students who walk through her
classroom doors. It is with great pride that I congratulate Christine
Roland on her exemplary career in education and her outstanding
performance at Edgewood High School in Harford County.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JERRY WELLER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the
Record votes I would have cast had I been present for rollcall votes
388 through 390. I was absent on Monday, June 9th, due to flight delays
caused by severe weather.
If I were present I would have voted, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 388,
``yea'' on rollcall vote 389, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 390.
____________________
CELEBRATING HOW STANLEY MICHELS GAVE NORTHERN MANHATTAN A POWERFUL
VOICE IN CITY POLITICS
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a champion of
environmental health and a stellar legislator, Stanley Michels, a 24-
year New York City Council member whose birthday we honor today. Three
decades ago, he set for himself an ambitious task: to render visible
the invisible, to--as he put it--``convince City Hall that there is
life in Manhattan above 96th Street.'' A lifelong resident of northern
Manhattan, he felt it imperative that he and his neighbors in West
Harlem, in Washington Heights, in Inwood, in Morningside Heights, in
Central Harlem, be given a voice. After an illustrious career on the
Council, it's safe to say he has succeeded, and then some. The litany
of legislative achievement attached to his name speaks to his political
and personal philosophies: Prioritize the quality of life of everyday
people. Hold steadfast to the guiding principles of fairness and
pragmatism. And always, always stand by those who need most defending.
An environmentalist at heart whose driving motivation was
consistently the health and well-being of his constituency, Michels led
the charge for cleaner air and the protection of the area's water
supply. He advanced a precedent-setting law aiming to protect children
from lead poisoning in apartments. He spearheaded an expansion of the
city's recycling and waste-reduction programs, requiring the weekly
collection of recyclables and granting the Council the power to approve
the city's Solid Waste Management Plan. He railed against smoking and
excessive noise in public places, limiting both in his time on the
Council.
Two short months after the attacks of Sept. 11, he held the first
public hearings on air
[[Page 12082]]
quality and the environmental impact of the World Trade Center
collapse. For nearly a decade, he chaired the Committee on
Environmental Protection, early in his tenure bringing together at-odds
parties in the battle over the city's watershed and succeeded in
creating the dialogue that led to the Watershed Memorandum of
Agreement, still effectively safeguarding the city's water-supply
system today. A master of both policy and relationships, he is as good
at legislating as he is at bringing people together.
He fought then--and continues to fight--for the little guy. He
required that there be public hearings before annual increases to rent-
stabilized apartments. He was the motivating force behind a provision
that exempted seniors from certain rent increases. He closed loopholes
in the deregulation of apartments, allowed the city to foreclose on
individual properties in tax arrears, and eliminated the parking garage
surtax for Manhattan residents.
For a quarter of a century, he served tirelessly for the public. His
home--too often forgotten, overlooked, disregarded--had finally a voice
in city government. And what a powerful and distinct voice he gave
them. He optimistically noted that his tenure sent the city a clear
message: that ``no city agency can ignore us'' ever again.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA
______
HON. ROBERT A. BRADY
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a
great Philadelphia institution and a staple in our community, The
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia has always held itself to the highest standard of care.
This month, they have been recognized for their excellence as they were
rated as the best over all children's hospital in America in a U.S.
News & World Report exclusive annual ranking, receiving this honor for
the sixth year in a row.
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia was founded in 1855 and was
the first hospital devoted solely to the care of children. Today it
houses 430 beds and treats more than one million patients a year.
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia specializes in cancer, digestive
disorders, heart and heart surgery, neonatal care, neurology and
neurosurgery and respiratory disorders. While coming in first for
overall general practices, the hospital also ranked in the top three in
the country in each of these individual categories.
Since it was established the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia has
been concentrated on caring for the families of patients as well as the
patients themselves. Now they have programs where parents teach the
physicians what it is like to care for a child with a specific disease,
because they have the best knowledge of this. The Children's Hospital
also encourages families to stay with their children at all times,
making the treatment more bearable for the children and their families.
Madam Speaker, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia is a key
institution in Philadelphia and I congratulate them on this honor and
thank them for their dedication to excellence and their service to our
community.
____________________
THE DAILY 45: MIGUEL CELIS
______
HON. BOBBY L. RUSH
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, every day, 45 people, on average, are
fatally shot in the United States. Young lives are being cut short
because of gun violence and families on both sides of the gun are
dramatically affected.
Last week, authorities charged Edgar Ceasar Diaz, 15, of Waukegan,
Illinois with six counts of first-degree murder that, if convicted,
could land him in jail for the remainder of his life. His family is in
pain over what their son is charged with.
Diaz is accused of the April 25 shooting death of 18-year-old Miguel
Celis also of Waukegan. Celis died of a gunshot wound to the chest
fired from a .38-caliber handgun that was recovered from Diaz,
according to reports. His family is in mourning.
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!''
____________________
RECOGNITION OF RICHARD M. KNAPP, PH.D.
______
HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the contributions of
Richard M. Knapp, Ph.D., who is retiring as Executive Vice President of
the Association of American Medical Colleges, AAMC, after 40 years of
service to the Nation on behalf of medical schools and teaching
hospitals.
As the senior policy advisor to the AAMC, Dr. Knapp has provided
leadership on a wide range of health policy matters, particularly
regarding the delivery of hospital and medical services where medical
education simultaneously occurs and research brings advances.
Dr. Knapp joined the AAMC in 1968 after earning a bachelor of arts
degree from Marietta College, in Marietta, Ohio, and a Ph.D. in
hospital and health administration from the University of Iowa.
He has consistently been a fair and thoughtful advocate for the
Nation's teaching hospitals and medical schools, and his knowledge and
integrity are widely recognized and appreciated.
Dr. Knapp's service to the health community includes his tenure on
the Board of Trustees of the Inova Health System in Fairfax County,
Virginia, from 1983-2005, where he served as chair from 1999-2003. He
is a past chairman of the National Association for Biomedical Research
and has held the offices of secretary and treasurer in the Federation
of Associations of Schools of the Health Professions. He also served on
the Advisory Board for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy
Fellowships.
Before becoming executive vice president of the AAMC, Dr. Knapp
served the organization as senior vice president, director of the
Department of Teaching Hospitals, director of the Division of Teaching
Hospitals, and director of a teaching hospital project.
His contributions to health care policy have been recognized by his
election to the Institute of Medicine.
I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Dr. Knapp and his family
every success and happiness in the next phase of his life.
____________________
THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT
______
HON. JOHN SULLIVAN
of oklahoma
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce H.R. 6219, the
Private Property Rights Protection and Government Accountability Act of
2008.
Previously, the U.S. Constitution specifically limited government
taking of private property through a relatively narrow exception for
``public use.'' Public use has historically referred to roads, schools,
firehouses, etc. You may remember the infamous 2005 Supreme Court
decision, Kelo v. City of New London, where the court broadened the
government's ability to take your home, farm, business or place of
worship. The negative affects of this far reaching Supreme Court
decision places millions of private property owners nationwide at risk.
Some States are trying to correct this injustice and have enacted
restrictions on the use of eminent domain (in this case, is when the
government seizes private property), with varied effectiveness.
However, Congress has not taken action to restore private property
rights and the abusive use of eminent domain has continued.
That is why I am introducing the Private Property Rights Protection
and Government Accountability Act of 2008, along with the House Energy
and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Joe Barton. This legislation will
restrict certain federal economic development funds for 10 years to any
state or locality in which eminent domain is used to take private
property for a private purpose. It will also allow private property
owners the legal recourse they deserve to fight baseless private
property takings by State and local governments.
Examples of eminent domain abuse can be seen across Oklahoma, from
Oklahoma City to Muskogee, and across this country.
No family, business operator or place of worship is safe if the
government decides that their property does not measure up, and that
``public purpose'' would be better served if it were torn down and
replaced by something bigger, glitzier and more taxable. I encourage
all my colleagues to support this important legislation.
[[Page 12083]]
____________________
IN HONOR OF KATHERINE KELLY
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the
life and work of Katherine Kelly. Ms. Kelly is a lifelong Democrat who
has always fought for the values and ideals that our party and our
country hold dear.
As a member of the Democratic Executive Committee (D.E.C.) of Palm
Beach County for more than 30 years, Katherine and her late husband,
Edward Kelly, helped to build the D.E.C. and bring it to the position
of prominence it holds today. Recognizing her status as one of the most
respected Democrats in Palm Beach County, her fellow Committee members
elected her State Committeewoman, a title she still holds.
Katherine Kelly was a founding member of Palm Beach County's first
chapter of the National Organization for Women and has spent her entire
life fighting to advance the rights of women. She has also been a
leader in countless endeavors to ensure the rights of minorities and
underprivileged citizens. And she is an ardent supporter of organized
labor and the rights of working men and women in South Florida and
throughout our Nation.
Katherine Kelly's relentless efforts have resulted in the election of
many Democratic officials at all levels of government. More
importantly, however, they have resulted in better lives for the people
for whom she has fought.
Katherine is loved and respected by all who have benefited from her
compassion, concern, and determination, and she has earned the
gratitude of the countless individuals who have benefited from her
work. I am extremely proud to call Katherine Kelly my friend and ally.
She is truly an admirable individual and a great American.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO CONGRESSMAN RICHARD A. GEPHARDT OF MISSOURI
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, let me take this time to recognize my
good friend and our former colleague, Congressman Richard A. Gephardt
of Missouri, who recently received the Harry S. Truman Award for Public
Service from the City of Independence, Missouri. This award is given
annually to honor a distinguished public servant who best exemplifies
the characteristics of President Harry S. Truman.
Congressman Richard Gephardt grew up in St. Louis, Missouri, and in
1958 graduated from Southwest High School. He is an Eagle Scout and is
a recipient of the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award. In 1962, he earned
a bachelor of science degree at Northwestern University in Evanston,
Illinois, and earned a law degree from the University of Michigan in
1965. After law school, Congressman Gephardt practiced law and set
forth on a distinguished public service career that included serving
the American people in military uniform and in elected office. From
1965 to 1971, Congressman Gephardt served in the Missouri Air National
Guard. From 1968 to 1971, he served as a Democratic committeeman in St.
Louis, and from 1971 to 1976, he served as a St. Louis alderman.
In 1976, Gephardt ran for and was elected to the U.S. House of
Representatives. From 1977 to 2005, Congressman Gephardt served the
people of Missouri and our country with distinction and quickly became
a leader within the Democratic Caucus. In 1984, he was elected chairman
of the House Democratic Caucus and was elected House majority leader in
1989. He subsequently served as House minority leader from 1994 to
2005. Gephardt also twice ran for the Democratic Presidential
nomination, in 1988 and in 2004. After retiring from Congress in 2005,
Gephardt formed a consulting and public policy development firm.
Madam Speaker, Congressman Richard A. Gephardt exemplifies the best
of American public service. He is so very deserving of the Harry S.
Truman Award, and I know my colleagues in the House will join me in
congratulating him, his wife, Jane, and their lovely family for their
years of dedication to the American people.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO GENERAL WILLIAM E. ODOM
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
General William E. Odom, a man of unquestionable character and
undeniable devotion to our Nation. He served with distinction, provided
experienced insight about our Nation's foreign policy decisions, and
expressed a rare candor that made him an invaluable resource to
everyone that worked with him, including the United States Congress.
On Friday, May 30, 2008, General Odom passed away at the age of 75.
The course of his career traces the evolution of our military and
intelligence communities over the past 25 years. He served as a senior
military intelligence official for President Jimmy Carter, and then
joined President Ronald Reagan as the director of the National Security
Agency during the administration's second term. Following his
retirement from the Army in 1988, after 34 years of active duty,
General Odom continued his service by teaching at Yale University,
working for the Hudson Institute, and writing scholarly works.
Chief among his laudable qualities, it was General Odom's candor that
proved most refreshing and invaluable. A self-described military hawk,
he was among the first military persons to speak out against the
invasion of Iraq and he openly advocated a withdrawal. General Odom
warned that military action in Iraq would be foolhardy and futile well
before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. In hindsight, his concerns were
well founded and have since been validated, but before the invasion he
was among the few willing to speak out loudly in opposition to the
drumbeat to war. His background and depth gave intellectual credence to
the growing opposition to the war, and he demonstrated that there were
differences of opinion within our military and intelligence communities
on the merits of the invasion.
To me and other members of the Defense Appropriations Committee,
General Odom was a great source of experience and a wealth of
knowledge. I came to rely upon his judgment and took counsel with him
privately on issues related to our national defense. He was a
thoughtful, steady guide on the most complex matters that face us
today, and we are at a loss without him. More importantly, the Nation
has lost a true and valued patriot.
Madam Speaker, we are saddened by General Odom's passing, and we
extend our heartfelt condolences to his family. May others learn from
his example and may his memory stay with us forever.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ROBIN AUGUST
______
HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Robin August, recently awarded the title of 2007-2008 Baltimore County
Teacher of the Year. Ms. August has been a teacher with Baltimore
County Public Schools for 8 years, teaching mathematics at Deep Creek
Elementary School and now Deep Creek Magnet Middle School.
Ms. August began her career in education in 1990, working for the
Baltimore City Public School System. In 2000, she accepted a position
at Deep Creek Elementary School in Baltimore County and is currently a
mathematics teacher and team leader at Deep Creek Magnet Middle School.
As the team leader for the 6th grade at Deep Creek, Ms. August has
been instrumental in developing and maintaining parental involvement
that is necessary for the school to be successful. She consistently
monitors the academic performance of her students in all of their
classes in order to provide mentorship to the students and provide
strategies to help them succeed. Throughout the year, Ms. August opens
her classroom doors to teachers who are in need of professional
development, modeling lessons that demonstrate excellence in teaching.
She has dedicated her career to improving achievement for her
students, serving on many school improvement teams and holding
positions as diverse as Student Council Advisor, curriculum writer, and
mentor. As a member of the leadership team at Deep Creek Middle, Ms.
August continues to bring new ideas to the school plan, helping to
design better and more efficient ways of meeting the various needs of
the students. Through the Teaching American History in Maryland
program, she has published work with the University of Maryland,
Baltimore County Center for History Education and presented at the
Maryland Conference for the Social Studies.
[[Page 12084]]
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Robin
August in her acceptance of the 2007-2008 Baltimore County Teacher of
the Year Award. Her legacy as a dedicated, enthusiastic educator will
be forever remembered by the grateful students who walk through her
classroom doors. It is with great pride that I congratulate Robin
August on her exemplary career in education and her outstanding
performance at Deep Creek Magnet Middle School in Baltimore County.
____________________
CONGRATULATORY REMARKS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL VALEDICTORIANS OF 2008
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend tens of thousands
of youngsters who, this year, earned their high school diplomas as
first in their respective graduating classes. The diploma in itself has
come to symbolize promise and opportunity, the first step in a series
of steps towards achieving the American dream, and I am proud of each
and every student who earned one this year. But that honor is ever the
more remarkable when awarded with a valedictorian title, an
acknowledgement that its receiver is academically top-notch in his or
her class.
These bright, young minds--freshly out of school, having ostensibly
left adolescence behind and come into their own as educated, young
adults--will inherit this world, as much our successes as our failures.
It will be up to them to improve upon our legacy, to wield their
ingenuity and knowledge to the benefit of their country and their
world. It pleases me to know that there are steady, capable young hands
out there prepared to mold, shape, and supply form to a better future.
These men and women are an exemplary class, many of whom will go on
to earn college degrees, serve America in some form of public service,
travel abroad, raise families, or join the workforce. Regardless of the
path, their unique strengths and talents will sustain America and her
standing on the global stage. Although the task may sound great and
daunting, these achievers have shown both grit and giftedness over the
past 4 years and will surely rise to the challenge with poise and a
sense of purpose.
But for today, we celebrate and congratulate, keeping an eye on the
greatness that lies in store for them and this Nation.
____________________
HONORING MR. JAMES ARNOLD
______
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my thanks and
congratulations to Mr. James Arnold, environmental restoration manager
for the Oregon National Guard. He was recently awarded the Secretary of
the Army's FY07 Environmental Restoration Award for contributions made
by an individual. This is the Army's highest honor in the field of
environmental science, and Mr. Arnold is the year's only individual to
be recognized.
As the Federal Government's largest property holder, the Department
of Defense has a significant responsibility to ensure its lands are
sustainably managed. Mr. Arnold's success proves that government can be
a good partner to communities and the environment. His innovative
approaches to resource management and remediation are a credit to
Oregonian ingenuity and environmental stewardship.
I am particularly impressed by the large-scale range remediation at
Camp Withycombe, located in my district. For years, I have advocated
for increased awareness and funding for the cleanup of our ranges and
legacy sites. This work in immensely challenging and I am impressed
with Mr. Arnold's creative, cost-effective, and above all, successful
approach to this problem.
I am proud that the Oregon Army National Guard is at the forefront of
the Army's efforts to transform its environmental and business
practices.
Mr. Arnold, thank you for your outstanding service to Oregon and our
country. I wish you the best of luck in your future work.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for
votes during the late afternoon and evening of May 22, 2008. For the
information of our colleagues and my constituents, I want the Record to
reflect how I would have voted on the following votes I missed that
day.
On rollcall 355, on the Akin amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``no.''
On rollcall 356, on the Franks amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``no.''
On rollcall 357, on the Tierney amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``no.''
On rollcall 358, on the Pearce amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``no.''
On rollcall 359, on the Lee amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``yes.''
On rollcall 360, on the Braley amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``yes.''
On rollcall 361, on the Price amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``yes.''
On rollcall 362, on the Holt amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``yes.''
On rollcall 363, on the McGovern amendment to H.R. 5658, I would have
voted ``yes.''
On rollcall 364, on the Motion to Recommit with instructions the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009
(H.R. 5658), I would have voted ``no.''
I would have done so because the Motion to Recommit--as written--
would have effectively killed the bill by sending it back to Committee.
I also objected to what the Motion attempted to do. It would have
repealed Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, which
ensures that federal agencies do not procure or promote alternative
fuels that emit, on a lifecycle basis, more greenhouse gas emissions
than equivalent conventional fuels produced from conventional petroleum
sources. This provision relates primarily to efforts of the Department
of Defense to obtain half of its domestically used fuel from domestic
synthetic sources by 2016. Specifically, the Air Force is pursuing
``coal-to-liquid'' fuel (CTL). According to both the EPA and DOE,
liquid coal produces double the global warming emissions compared to
conventional gasoline.
An amendment adopted on the floor clarified Section 526 to ensure
that federal agencies could procure conventional fuels that contain
incidental amounts of unconventional fuels. With the passage of this
amendment, it is my belief that there is no reason to repeal Section
526, since the Department of Defense has said that it intends to pursue
CTL with carbon capture and sequestration. In addition, the Defense
Science Board Task Force on Energy recommended that if DOD decides to
provide financial backing to synthetic fuel production plants, it
should avoid investing in processes that exceed the carbon footprint of
petroleum.
On rollcall 365, on Passage of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (H.R. 5658), I would have voted
``yes.''
On rollcall 366, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as
Amended, to H. Res. 986, a resolution recognizing the courage and
sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces who were
held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a
full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain
unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict, I would have voted ``yes.''
The resolution recognizes the 35th anniversary of ``Operation
Homecoming,'' when the first wave of the longest-held POWs from Vietnam
left that country to return to the United States. We honor those POWs,
but we also honor those brave heroes who fought and died for our
country but never returned home.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. SUE WILKINS MYRICK
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, due to a flight cancellation, I was
unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I
would have voted as follows:
June 9, 2008:
Rollcall vote 388, on motion to suspend the rules and agree--H. Res.
1225, expressing support for designation of June 2008 as ``National
Safety Month''--I would have voted ``aye.''
Rollcall vote 389, on motion to suspend the rules and agree--H. Res.
1243, recognizing the immeasurable contributions of fathers in the
healthy development of children, supporting responsible fatherhood, and
encouraging greater involvement of fathers in the lives of their
children, especially on Father's Day--I would have voted ``aye.''
[[Page 12085]]
Rollcall vote 390, on motion to suspend the rules and agree--H. Res.
127, recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry of
Alaska into the Union as the 49th State--I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION TO NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY
MEETINGS IN BERLIN, AND A SUBSEQUENT TRIP TO TURKEY AND AFGHANISTAN
______
HON. JOHN S. TANNER
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, during the recent district work period I
led a bipartisan House delegation to NATO Parliamentary Assembly (NPA)
meetings in Berlin, from May 23-27. The co-chair of my delegation was
the Hon. John Shimkus. Participating in the delegation were
Representatives Marion Berry, John Boozman, Ben Chandler, Jo Ann
Emerson, Carolyn McCarthy, Ralph Regula, Dennis Moore, David Scott, and
Mike Ross, and staff worked to make this a successful trip in the
examination of a number of key NATO issues.
The NATO Parliamentary Assembly brings together members of
parliaments of the NATO allies, as well as observer participants from
NATO partner states such as Russia and Ukraine, for discussions of
current issues of interest to the alliance. Members attend committee
meetings where reports are read and debated. The meetings afford an
opportunity to sound parliamentarians from allied states on public
opinion, defense and foreign policy, and trends in thinking on issues
of mutual interest. The meetings also provide the opportunity to come
to know members of parliaments on a long-term basis, an invaluable
asset in developing insights into policy development in allied
governments.
After the Assembly meetings in Berlin, the delegation traveled on to
Turkey and Afghanistan, where we explored issues that I will address in
a moment.
Recurrent themes on key NATO issues were evident in the Berlin
committee meetings. Above all, NATO's International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan was a constant topic of discussion. It is
clear that ISAF needs more combat personnel, and that caveats--
restrictions that allies place on the use of their forces--are
adversely affecting efforts to stabilize Afghanistan. Energy security,
Russia's foreign policy objectives, defense capabilities, and Iran were
also important areas of discussion.
I am chairman of the NPA's Committee on Economics and Security. I
would like to take this opportunity to mention that our friend and
colleague, Ralph Regula, continued his long and distinguished service
on that committee during the Berlin meetings. His contributions over
many years have been invaluable.
Representative Boozman and a Lithuanian colleague presented a well-
received report in the Economics Committee on India's economy. India
plays an important role in south Asia, and U.S.-Indian relations have
strengthened over the past decade. India's proximity to Afghanistan and
its often tense relations with Pakistan play a role in the
stabilization of that volatile area. The Indian economy has opened up
in recent years, and there is clear evidence of a growing middle class
in the world's largest democracy. There was also a report on the Afghan
economy, which must grow and diversify more rapidly if Afghanistan is
to stabilize. The report emphasized the negative effects of
Afghanistan's extensive poppy culture and poor governance on ISAF's
stabilization efforts.
Our friend and former colleague, Doug Bereuter, who was once
president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, gave an interesting
presentation on the efforts of the Asia Foundation, which he now heads,
to assist schools and women in Afghanistan and other parts of Asia. His
report, a version of which he also presented in the Political
Committee, was enlightening and extremely well-received.
The Political Committee is normally the most contentious of the
Assembly's committees, and that was once again true. As I mentioned,
Russia sends observers to the Assembly who may participate in debates,
but who may not vote. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a former Russian general
and candidate for the Russian presidency, is now a member of
parliament, and he made his presence frequently felt. He repeatedly
denounced NATO and its efforts to stabilize the Balkans and Afghanistan
as ``terrorist'' incursions in Russia's supposedly legitimate sphere of
influence. The Russian delegates have chosen during the past several
years to play a disruptive role in Assembly proceedings.
Representative Ross delivered a well-received report in the Political
Committee on ``NATO and Iran,'' which looked forward prospectively to
ways that the alliance might work with the EU and the U.N. to induce
Tehran to terminate its nuclear enrichment program that is in violation
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. His ideas ranged from political
pressure to greater economic sanctions to carrots in the form of
limited military confidence-building measures in return for a cessation
of Iran's illegitimate nuclear activities. I should mention that
Representative Chandler is a vice-chairman of the Political Committee,
and he played an active role in a number of sessions.
The Committee on Defense and Security also engaged in some
interesting debates. ISAF's prospects in Afghanistan were sharply
debated. The representatives of several allies, such as Britain,
Canada, and the Netherlands that have combat forces in Afghanistan,
urged other allies to contribute more troops and to lift their caveats.
The debate was sharp at times. ISAF now has 52,000 troops, of which
approximately 22,000 are from the United States. The Russians continued
their erratic behavior in the Defense Committee, denouncing the allies'
stabilization efforts in Afghanistan. Rep. Shimkus is the vice-chair of
the Subcommittee on Transatlantic Defense and Security Cooperation, and
he made several valuable interventions on such issues as the need for
allies to spend more on defense, and on NATO's efforts to stabilize the
Caucasus.
Two of our colleagues play key roles in the Assembly's Committee on
the Civil Dimension of Security. Representative Moore is vice-
chairperson of the Committee on Civil Dimension, and Representative
Emerson is vice-chairperson of the Subcommittee on Democratic
Governance. Each made important contributions to the debates in the
Civil Dimension Committee. An interesting discussion took place in
response to a report on NATO and energy security. Representative Scott
made a valuable contribution in detailing ways that NATO could play a
constructive role in building energy security and thereby enhancing
global security.
The Committee on Science and Technology also heard a report on energy
security. The German rapporteur contended that Russia is a reliable
supplier of oil and natural gas for Europe, a controversial point of
view that some believe is contradicted by Moscow's occasional cut-offs
of energy to Ukraine, Georgia, and Lithuania. Increasingly, our
European allies are dependent on Russian energy resources, a
development that could open the door to Russian pressure and influence
in NATO in the event of a crisis. Representative Scott chided the
Russians for not having ratified the Energy Charter Treaty, which
obligates signatories to follow market practices and disavow the use of
energy as a political tool. Representative Shimkus raised the point
that diversification of supply and types of fuels is key to enhancing
energy security. This was a forceful debate on an issue that is likely
to engage NATO's interest in the decades to come.
The last day of the Assembly's meetings was spent in a plenary
session. There were a number of interesting speakers, including the
German foreign minister and the NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer. De Hoop Scheffer urged the parliamentarians to go back to
their publics and make the case for the importance of developing
reliable, deployable combat forces, and for making a meaningful
contribution to ISAF's efforts in Afghanistan. A German general also
spoke. The Russian Zhirinovsky again made his presence felt when he
claimed, to the amazement and amusement of the delegates, that Russia
had generously brought down the Berlin wall and made democracy possible
in East Germany. He contended that NATO would fail in Afghanistan, just
as Russia had. The German general--General Ramm--calmly replied that
Russia failed in Afghanistan because it had sought a military solution,
and that NATO would succeed because it is seeking a political solution.
Our delegation had an interesting private meeting with Secretary
General de Hoop Scheffer, during which we had a highly informative
discussion of such issues as Afghanistan, energy security, and Iran's
relations with its neighbors. The delegation also met with the U.S.
ambassador to NATO, Victoria Nuland, who gave us her valuable
perspective on the issues that she considers to be most important on
the NATO agenda. We also visited the new U.S. embassy, near the line of
the old Berlin wall, and met with our ambassador, William Timken.
During a dinner the final night of our meetings, German Chancellor
Angela Merkel sat at my table, and we had a lively discussion about a
range of issues of mutual interest.
[[Page 12086]]
After the meetings in Berlin, we flew to Turkey for meetings with a
range of senior Turkish officials. Turkey remains a key ally, perhaps
even more important than it was during the Cold War. Turkey's strategic
location--on the Bosphorus and the Black Sea, facing the Mediterranean,
at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, and on the route of critical
energy supplies--is vital to NATO security. In addition, Turkey is a
Muslim country and a democracy. An important issue confronting Turkey
is its application to join the European Union, a step that some EU
governments strongly oppose. Today, there is a vigorous discussion in
Turkey about the role of Islam in society. An Islamic Party, the
Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by prime minister Tayyip
Erdogan, is in a protracted but restrained contest for power with other
parties and the Turkish military. On May 28 the delegation met with
specialists in Istanbul who represent a range of views in Turkey's
academic and journalistic world on the country's future, and on the
debate over the role of Islam and secularism in Turkish society.
Our meetings in Istanbul prepared us for our visit the next day to
Ankara, where we held a succession of meetings with senior government
officials. We met with prime minister Erdogan, with whom we had a
direct but constructive discussion over U.S.-Turkish relations and on
Turkey's future. We then met with our former NATO Parliamentary
Assembly colleague, Abdullah Gul, now the president of Turkey and also
a member of the AKP. We had a very cordial discussion on a range of
issues. It is clear that U.S.-Turkish relations have improved since
November 2007, when the United States began to assist Turkey in its
effort to subdue the Kurdish terrorist movement known as the PKK, which
is seeking to carve away Turkish territory and unite it with part of
northern Iraq, where Kurds also live. Finally, we had a meeting with
the defense minister Vecdi Gonul, a civilian who is an important link
for the AKP to the Turkish military. We are hoping that our Turkish
friends in the political parties and the military will resolve their
differences peacefully, and that Turkish democracy will be
strengthened.
While in Ankara, the delegation went to the tomb of Kemal Ataturk,
the founder of modern Turkey. I laid a wreath and signed a memorial
book in honor of the man who established the secular Turkish state. It
was a solemn occasion on a brilliantly bright, sunny day.
After our meetings in Ankara, that night the delegation proceeded to
Adana, where the Turkish military base Incirlik is located. U.S.
forces, with Turkish permission, fly supply missions to Iraq and
Afghanistan from Incirlik. Adana and the base are located near the
Syrian border. The following morning we met with the governor of Adana,
who gave us a briefing on PKK activity and on political developments in
the Adana region. He was a strong advocate of Turkish membership in the
EU, which he believes would strengthen Turkish democracy.
At Incirlik, we also had the opportunity to meet with some of our
troops who are from our constituencies. These are the young men and
women that make the United States safe and secure, whether serving here
or in distant places. We should keep them in our thoughts as we
appreciate the stability and security that we enjoy here in the United
States.
By chance, we crossed paths at Incirlik with Gen. David Petraeus, who
was at the base for a brief stay. He offered to meet with the
delegation, and there was an interesting exchange of views on a range
of strategic issues.
On May 31 we left Incirlik at an early hour for the flight to Kabul,
where we spent the entire day. The stabilization of Afghanistan is
NATO's principal mission. Many believe that NATO's credibility is on
the line in Afghanistan because the allies have pledged to commit the
resources to stabilize the country to prevent the reappearance of a
failed state, a failed state that caused the tragedy of 9/11. There are
clearly differences in the alliance over how to accomplish this
objective. Some governments prefer to employ economic reconstruction
assistance and avoid sending their troops into combat; these tend to be
the governments that have the most restrictive caveats on their forces.
We met with the most senior U.S. officials in Kabul to discuss
Afghanistan's path to stabilization. Our meetings were highly
substantive, and we all gained valuable information on ISAF's effort
and on U.S. perspectives and initiatives. We also met with Afghan
President Hamid Karzai, and had an extensive discussion of
Afghanistan's problems and prospects.
In Afghanistan, there can be no reconstruction without security. The
Taliban is not a strong force, but the Afghan state lacks strong,
enduring institutions. There must be security therefore for the
rebuilding effort to succeed. ISAF may need more forces in the coming
year in order to secure territory cleared of the Taliban. A positive
development is that approximately 25% of the combat missions are now
led by the Afghan National Army (ANA), with strong backing from the
U.S. and some other NATO militaries. During our meetings in Kabul, U.S.
officials were upbeat on the progress of the ANA, but the task of
securing Afghanistan is far from finished. The poppy crop continues to
thrive in the south, some warlords maintain a sway over territory that
has never been under the control of an Afghan government, and there are
enduring tribal rivalries and distrust of Kabul.
Closely associated with the issue of engagement of the Taliban in
combat is the need to establish a viable economy and justice system.
The Soviet and Taliban eras decimated the educated elite. The number of
persons trained as lawyers and judges is minimal. At the base of the
justice system is the police. The EU has struggled to develop a program
to train the police, so the U.S. military has stepped in. Gen. Cone is
developing more professional police cohorts one region at a time, and
backing them with the U.S. military until they establish their
authority. This will be a long-term effort, and it is going to require
patience on the part of NATO publics.
Members and staff also met with U.S. participants in ISAF's
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), the leading edge of bringing
reconstruction to Afghanistan through such efforts as road building,
school and hospital construction, and the development of local markets.
A basic economy has begun to appear around some of the PRTs, but there
remains much to accomplish.
There are three key needs for the PRTs. The first is the placement of
agricultural specialists in each of the 26 ISAF PRTs. The United States
only recently placed one agricultural specialist at each of its 13
PRTs; the need is great for agricultural specialists at other NATO
PRTs, and in the local agricultural schools. Afghanistan is and will
remain for the foreseeable future an agrarian economy, now dependent
largely on poppies. This poppy culture must diminish over time, perhaps
to be replaced by orchard crops and wheat. This effort will take time.
A second need for the PRTs is the hiring of local Afghans who can
assist our own officials in understanding local practices and political
authority, and who can serve as guides as we plan efforts to rebuild
the country.
A third need for the PRTs is the availability of transport. Today,
our civilians in the PRTs must rely heavily on the military to move
them around the region where they live. But because security comes
first, the civilian specialists must often wait lengthy periods of time
to obtain the transport and accompanying security to accomplish their
tasks.
Our trip to Afghanistan was highly informative and there remains much
to digest about what we learned. This was a difficult, but valuable
trip that provided insights into one of the United States' most
difficult foreign policy problems.
As always we were extremely well-served by our accompanying military
personnel. The 932nd Airlift Wing, Air Force Reserve now at Scott Air
Force Base, Ill., provided exceptional professionalism in assisting us
throughout our trip and ensuring our safety in moving throughout Europe
and to Afghanistan. All worked long hours to ensure that our trip went
smoothly. I thank them for their hard work and their dedication to
duty.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. J. GRESHAM BARRETT
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to unforeseen
circumstances, I unfortunately missed recorded votes on the House floor
on Monday, June 9, 2008.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No.
388 (Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1225), ``yea'' on
rollcall vote No. 389 (Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res.
1243), and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 390 (Motion to suspend the
rules and agree to H. Res. 127).
____________________
HONORING DR. I.C. TURNLEY, JR., FOR 50 YEARS OF SERVICE TO LaSALLE
PARISH
______
HON. RODNEY ALEXANDER
of louisiana
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. I.C. Turnley,
Jr., who for
[[Page 12087]]
the last 50 years has faithfully served the people of Jena, LA, and
LaSalle Parish through his medical practice, which he first opened on
July 1, 1958.
While enrolled as a pre-med student at Louisiana Tech University in
Ruston, LA, Dr. Turnley answered the call a great many in his
generation answered. He put his education on hold and enrolled in the
U.S. military to serve his country in World War II and was awarded
commendation for his work at the U.S. Navy Hospital in San Diego. After
his service, he returned home to Louisiana to complete his undergrad
studies at Louisiana Tech and later earn his medical degree from
Louisiana State University in 1956.
In addition to his private practice in Jena, Dr. Turnley served on
staff at the Jena Hospital and later the LaSalle General Hospital when
it was opened in the early 1970s. He also bears a unique distinction in
the State of Louisiana as the longest serving elected official, having
served as the parish coroner for the past 48 years.
Beyond his work as a physician, Dr. Turnley has been active in
Masonic work in Jena and was elected as Grand Master of the Freemasons
for the State of Louisiana in 1996.
The ``Dr. Turnleys of the world'' are the very ones who built up our
Nation following World War II; they are the ones who are respected and
admired in their communities, the ones who have dedicated not only
their talents and abilities but their time and their compassion in an
effort to help their fellow citizens. Yet, while many small communities
may boast men and women like Dr. Turnley, to Jena, there is no other
quite like him.
To honor him, Murphy McMillin, mayor of Jena, has declared Friday,
June 20, 2008, as ``Dr. I.C. Turnley, Jr. Day.''
Madam Speaker, Americans such as Dr. I.C. Turnley, Jr., deserve
recognition from the United States Congress as well. I ask my
colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Turnley for all he has done for
his community and his country.
____________________
CELEBRATING SYLVANIA, OHIO'S 150TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. MARCY KAPTUR
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a milestone
anniversary for the City of Sylvania in my district. This month,
Sylvania celebrates the 150th anniversary of its founding.
Founded in 1833 by General David White and Judge William Wilson at
the junction of Ten Mile and Ottawa Creeks near the present day border
of Ohio and Michigan, the area was originally the campgrounds of Erie,
Chippewa and Wyandot tribes. First settlers' names continue through
generations, including Lathrop, Pease, Printup, Rice, Green and
Cosgrove. They established the first Sylvania school and church early
on: both the Stone Academy and First Presbyterian Church were
established in 1834.
In 1876, the town was formally incorporated. Truly a sylvan glade
with more than one thousand trees, Sylvania took its name from the
Latin ``sylvan'' meaning ``the woods.'' It remains a city of trees
today, including 27 varieties of maple, with the maple leaf as the
city's symbol.
In the decades which followed through the nineteenth, twentieth, and
now the twenty-first century, Sylvania has prospered. It is a caring
community with fine schools and first rate services for young and old
and families. Sylvania remains a bucolic community reminiscent of its
wooded early history, yet offers a bustling suburban economy of
thriving businesses. Its Main Street retains charm from its past, but
Sylvania at 150 years is a city moving forward. I am pleased to offer
the congratulations of our entire region during this sesquicentennial
celebration.
____________________
REMARKS IN RECOGNITION OF THE 30TH ANNIVERSARY OF CORA
______
HON. JACKIE SPEIER
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, this week, CORA--Community Overcoming
Relationship Abuse--celebrates the thirtieth anniversary of
comprehensive domestic violence support in San Mateo County.
Three decades ago, a victim of domestic violence on the San Francisco
peninsula had no resources outside of hospitals and the police. Then in
1978, La Casa de San Mateo opened its doors to become the county's
first and only emergency shelter for domestic violence survivors and
their children. La Casa later changed its name to the Center for
Domestic Violence Prevention and in 2003, partnered with Sor Juana
Ines, the first toll-free domestic violence hotline in the county, to
become CORA.
CORA's mission is to end domestic violence and abuse through
intervention and prevention. The dedicated staff and volunteers respond
to thousands of calls on the CORA hotline, and answer an equal number
of requests for legal assistance each year. They serve more than 6,000
clients annually, providing legal, medical and mental health services,
as well as counseling and safety in the county's only shelter for abuse
victims and their children. This operation is overseen by the CORA
governing board and a diverse staff of 35 who represent the vibrant
cross-section of the county and region. Besides English and Spanish,
CORA staff-members speak Tagalog, French, Mandarin, Italian, Korean,
Hindi, and Farsi.
Madam Speaker, domestic violence is a silent epidemic. Every nine
seconds, a woman in our country is abused by someone she knows.
Millions of children witness acts of violence involving one or more
parents every year. And one in five female high school students reports
being physically or sexually abused by a dating partner.
Domestic violence impacts all of us. It is a significant drain on
police and emergency resources and costs the national economy eight to
ten billion dollars annually in medical bills, community support and
lost wages and productivity. It is also a leading cause of homelessness
and often leads to depression, substance abuse and--most troubling--an
increased likelihood that victims and young witnesses will go on to
become abusers themselves.
Madam Speaker, thanks to increased public awareness, domestic abuse
is emerging from the shadows of shame and ignorance. Still, there are
far too many instances of cruel and dehumanizing behavior within what
should be the security of the family home. Because of this, society
will always need an organization like CORA. My sincere hope is that,
someday, we will need them less.
____________________
SUPPORTING OUR MEN AND WOMEN SERVING IN THE MILITARY AND URGING
CONGRESS TO CONTINUE FUNDING FOR THE AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS
RESEARCH PROGRAM (ALSRP) AT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
______
HON. ZOE LOFGREN
of california
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express
my support for our men and women serving in the military and to urge
Congress to continue funding for the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Research Program (ALSRP) at the Department of Defense.
Studies conducted by the DOD and Veterans Administration have found
that those who served in the 1991 Gulf War are approximately twice as
likely to die from ALS, the deadly disease that took the life of
baseball legend Lou Gehrig, as those who did not serve in the Gulf. In
addition, current research suggests that ALS is occurring at greater
rates in those who are serving in the current conflict in Iraq.
Tragically, there is no effective treatment for ALS and it is fatal in
just two to five years after diagnosis.
The ALSRP is an innovative program that has the potential not only to
develop new treatments for ALS that benefit our soldiers and veterans
but also to determine why they are at greater risk and enable us to
take action to protect them. I therefore urge the Appropriations
Committee to include $5 million for the ALSRP in the FY 2009 DOD
Appropriations bill.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO SENATOR KENNEDY
______
HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the
following passage on Senator Ted Kennedy written by Albert Carey
Caswell.
A Lion in Winter
A Lion in Winter . . .
Facing The Storm, with The Heart of A Champion . . . so very
warm . . .
[[Page 12088]]
Where courage lives, to help you move on!
An American Tale, as a nation so stands behind you Ted . . .
with all of our prayers, so now!
Take this to your heart Ted, take this to your soul . . . as
you move out so to behold!
In this your battle to be won . . .
In this your war to be waged, in this but another chapter Ted
. . . in your life's most heroic page . . . of all
ones!
As you face this new morning, as you face this dark sun!
Standing Tall, to do what must so be done!
To Fight That Good Fight, To Wage That Great War, our Lion In
Winter . . . Our Precious American Son sure!
From deep down inside, that great Irish Heart . . . win this
Great Battle, This Great War begun . . .
For A Lion In Winter . . .
With the Heart of A Champ, against all odds . . . we can hear
your roar, can victory so command!
For no man known's more, what a heart can so endure . . . and
can so stand!
Ted it's the bottom of the 9th, with two outs!
Like the Teddy before you of The Sox's, we know you too can
pull this one out!
Go with God My Son, as you have always done . . . we know you
will be rounding the bases, no doubt!
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN
of south dakota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to
participate in three votes on the floor of the House of Representatives
on June 9, 2008. I was absent due to illness.
As noted, I was not present for three votes:
The first vote was H. Res. 1225, Expressing support for designation
of June 2008 as ``National Safety Month.'' Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on that question.
The second vote was H. Res. 1243, Recognizing the immeasurable
contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children,
supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement
of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question.
The third vote was H. Res. 127, Recognizing and celebrating the 50th
anniversary of the entry of Alaska in the Union as the 49th State. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on that question.
____________________
IN HONOR OF THE GRAND OPENING OF GREENHUNTER ENERGY'S RENEWABLE FUELS
CAMPUS IN HOUSTON, TEXAS
______
HON. GENE GREEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor the grand
opening of GreenHunter Energy's Renewable Fuels Campus located in my
congressional district in Houston, Texas.
GreenHunter Energy's renewable fuels campus--a converted waste oil
refinery--is the largest and most versatile biodiesel refinery in the
U.S. to date. The campus includes a 105 million gallon per year
biodiesel refinery, a 700,000 barrel bulk liquid terminal operation, a
200 million pound-per-year glycerin distillation system, and a 45,000
barrel-per-month methanol distillation tower.
GreenHunter Energy's biodiesel refinery is ``feedstock agnostic'',
meaning that it can use 100 percent animal fats, 100 percent vegetable
oils, or any blend of the two interchangeably. By producing biodiesel
from multiple feedstocks, including non-edible sources such as tallow
and jatropha, GreenHunter offers practical solutions to the ongoing
``food versus fuels'' debate.
Located along Houston's Ship Channel, GreenHunter's campus has
deepwater access and the ability to transport products via barge, rail,
and truck. Biodiesel generators at the site will provide enough
electricity for GreenHunter to power the campus and sell unneeded
renewable power back to the area's power grid.
The addition of GreenHunter Energy's zero emission facility has
created many new long-term jobs for Texans and will help move our
nation closer to its goal of reducing dependence on foreign crude oil
supplies.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, on June 9, 2008, I missed
rollcall votes No. 388, Expressing support for designation of June 2008
as ``National Safety Month,'' 389, Recognizing the immeasurable
contributions of fathers in the healthy development of children,
supporting responsible fatherhood, and encouraging greater involvement
of fathers in the lives of their children, especially on Father's Day;
and 390, Recognizing and celebrating the 50th anniversary of the entry
of Alaska into the Union as the 49th State.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes No.
388, 389, and 390.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE WORKING FAMILIES GAS TAX CREDIT ACT OF 2008
______
HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am honored to rise today to
introduce the Working Families Gas Tax Credit Act of 2008. Similar to
legislation that I introduced in the 109th Congress, this bill will
provide greatly needed tax credits to individuals and families so that
they can cope with soaring gas prices.
The Working Families Gas Tax Credit Act will provide a $500 tax
credit to individuals and a $1,000 tax credit to families who make up
to $75,000 or $150,000 or less, respectively.
This legislation will act as a secondary economic stimulus by
providing credits to all individuals and families who were eligible for
the economic stimulus rebate recently passed into law by the Democratic
Congress. Similar to the 2008 economic stimulus package, the amount of
the credit will phase out for individuals making over $75,000 and
families making over $150,000.
Madam Speaker, working families are paying twice as much as they were
paying for a gallon of gas last year while oil companies are reporting
record profits. It's literally highway robbery, especially when you
consider that beyond housing costs, low- and middle-income households
in the United States spend more of their earnings on transportation
than anything else. Americans are looking to Congress to help them
respond to unwarranted gas price increases. The Working Families Gas
Tax Credit Act will give working families the temporary relief that
they need during this difficult time.
While it is true that there have been a number of proposals offered
by our colleagues to confront current fuel price challenges, this
proposal is unique in that it will put necessary resources directly in
the hands of consumers. This will be an important stop gap measure as
we reprioritize our international fuel prices and confront the
corruption and failed policies that have led to our Nation's
unsustainable oil addiction.
I encourage my colleagues to support this necessary legislation and
look forward to its expedient passage.
____________________
150 YEARS OF SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY
______
HON. BARNEY FRANK
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, this year marks the 150th
Anniversary of an extraordinarily important religious congregation in
the city of Newton, which I am proud to represent in this body, and
where I have lived for 28 years. Congregation Mishkan Tefila has been
an important part of the city of Newton since 1858. At that point, of
course, Jewish citizens of the city were a very small number of a much
smaller city. Over time, both the city and the Jewish population have
grown significantly, and Temple Mishkan Tefila has been an important
element in the growth of both. Temple Mishkan Tefila has of course been
primarily a place of worship for large numbers of Jewish men, women and
young people, and through a series of outstanding rabbis and other
leaders, it has performed that essential function superbly. It has also
been a forum for community leadership in a number of other ways. Its
doors have always been open to the community, both its own members and
the community at large, and I have personally benefited from that
openness on a
[[Page 12089]]
number of occasions by being able to participate in forums that the
temple has run, which have helped me and others fulfill our duties to
relate to our constituents.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to salute the members of
the Mishkan Tefila Congregation on this 150th Anniversary, and
congratulate them on their opportunity both to look back on a very
proud history, and to look forward to the promise of continued great
service in the years ahead.
____________________
HONORING THE LEGACY OF CONSTANTINO BRUMIDI
______
HON. JOHN L. MICA
of florida
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of
Constantino Brumidi, who has been referred to as the Michelangelo of
the United States Capitol Building. It is appropriate that Congress
honor his incredible contributions to our Nation by awarding him the
Congressional Gold Medal.
On July 26, 1805, Constantino Brumidi was born in Rome, Italy of an
Italian mother and a Greek father who inspired him with a love of
liberty. While Constantino Brumidi's Greek ancestry stirred his passion
for liberty and citizenship, his Italian heritage provided the art
styles of the Renaissance and the Baroque which influenced the artwork
of the U.S. Capitol.
Constantino Brumidi became a citizen of the United States as soon as
he was able, embracing its history, values and ideals. Beginning in
1855, Constantino Brumidi designed and decorated one House and five
Senate committee rooms in the Capitol, as well as the Senate Reception
Room, the Office of the Vice President and most notably, the
President's Room, which represents Brumidi's supreme effort ``to make
beautiful the Capitol'' of the United States.
In 1865, Constantino Brumidi completed, in just 11 months, his
masterpiece, ``The Apotheosis of Washington,'' in the eye of the
Capitol dome. In 1871, Constantino Brumidi created the first tribute to
an African American in the Capitol when he placed the figure of Crispus
Attucks at the center of his fresco of the Boston Massacre. In 1878,
Constantino Brumidi, at the age of 72, and in poor health, began work
on the Rotunda frieze, which chronicles the history of America. On
February 19, 1880, Constantino Brumidi died at the age of 74, four and
a half months after slipping and nearly falling from a scaffold while
working on the Rotunda frieze.
Constantino Brumidi, proud of his artistic accomplishments and
devoted to his adopted country, said: ``My one ambition and my daily
prayer is that I may live long enough to make beautiful the Capitol of
the one country on earth in which there is liberty.''
Madam Speaker, Constantino Brumidi's life and work exemplifies the
lives of millions of immigrants who came to pursue the American dream.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 10TH ANNIVERSARY OF NORTEX MODULAR SPACE IN LEWISVILLE,
TX
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
outstanding accomplishments of Nortex Modular Space of Lewisville,
Texas, an exemplary organization in North Texas that is celebrating its
10th Anniversary.
Nortex Modular Space is a small business manufacturer with 95
employees based in Lewisville, and it is the leading manufacturer of
durable and energy efficient mobile and modular office and classroom
buildings. Jim and Sherry Stewart started Nortex Modular Space in
Highland Village in 1998 and have a lease fleet of over 700 mobile
office and mobile classroom units
The company specializes in the sale, lease, rental, repair and
renovation of modular and portable buildings, mobile office trailers,
portable classroom buildings, re-locatable buildings, modular church
buildings, GSA modular buildings, temporary offices, classrooms, as
well as medical and special use buildings to government and private
industry.
Nortex Modular Space has clients all around the country and even
overseas. Customers include the U.S. Department of the Interior, the
U.S. Secret Service, the City of Dallas, the U.S. Army, the Texas
Department of Transportation, the University of Texas at Arlington and
the University of North Texas.
In 2005, Nortex Modular Space was recognized by
DiversityBusiness.com, the nation's leading multicultural internet
site, as one of the Top 100 Small Businesses in Texas. Small businesses
form the backbone of the American economy, which is the strongest in
the world. They account for half of gross domestic product, more than
half of American jobs, and three-fourths of new jobs created each year.
Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to recognize
Nortex Modular Space and celebrate its 10-year anniversary. This
excellent company has served North Texans for 10 good years, and I am
certain they will continue their good work for many more years to come.
____________________
HONORING THE RETIREMENT OF MASTER CHIEF JOHN E. DOWNEY, UNITED STATES
COAST GUARD
______
HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today
to honor a truly great member of the U.S. Coast Guard--Master Chief
John E. ``Jack'' Downey--who was throughout his 41 years of service
``always ready for the call.''
Master Chief Downey enlisted in the Coast Guard at age 19 from his
hometown of Narragansett, Rhode Island, in 1966 and will retire at
Station Point Judith in Narragansett on the 20th of this month, having
served continuously in the Coast Guard in reserve and active duty
status for almost 42 years. Master Chief Downey is retiring as Command
Master Chief of Coast Guard District One (Boston, Massachusetts)--one
of the nine Command Master Chiefs in the Coast Guard. He has served in
this position since September of 2006.
Seaman Recruit Jack Downey reported to the Coast Guard Training
Center, Cape May, New Jersey, on November 11, 1966, and completed basic
training in February 1967. Seaman Apprentice Downey reported to Coast
Guard Cutter Casco (WHEC 370) on March 8, 1967, and was promoted to
Seaman on November 1, 1967.
On December 15, 1967, Seaman Downey reported to Coast Guard Air
Station Salem, Massachusetts where he was a rescue boat crewman for
water take-offs and landings--in the days of amphibious fix-wing
aircraft.
Seaman Downey transferred to Station Point Judith, Rhode Island, in
March 1968, where he served on active duty until 1970, then 8\1/2\
years in reserve status, returning to active duty in 1979 and
continuing his service at Pt. Judith until 1982. While stationed at Pt.
Judith, Downey was promoted to Boatswain's Mate Third Class on January
16, 1969, to Boatswain's Mate Second Class on December 16, 1969, to
Boatswain's Mate First Class on April 1, 1972, to Chief Boatswain's
Mate on September 1, 1975 and to Senior Chief Boatswain's Mate April 1,
1980.
Senior Chief Downey returned to sea duty on the Coast Guard Cutter
Chase (WHEC 718) on January 10, 1982.
In addition to service on the CGC Casco and CGC Chase, Boatswain's
Mate Downey had many temporary assignments afloat on CGC Seneca (WMEC
906), CGC Reliance (WMEC 615), CGC Neah Bay (WTGB 105), CGC Cape George
(WPB 95306) and CGC Point Hannon (WPB 82355). Many of these Temporary
Assigned Duty assignments were necessitated by the Coast Guard's need
to ``fix'' a leadership issue--a position Jack Downey found himself in
on more than one occasion.
On February 21, 1984, Senior Chief Downey returned to shore duty at
Group/Station Woods Hole, Massachusetts where he was Officer-In-Charge
of the Station.
Senior Chief Downey took command, as Officer-In-Charge, of Coast
Guard Cutter Towline (WYTL 65605), a 65-foot harbor tug/icebreaker, on
June 15, 1987.
On November 1, 1988, Senior Chief Downey transferred to Coast Guard
Station Chatham at the elbow of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, where he faced
one of his most challenging assignments--dealing with an unforgiving
and ever changing environment, and a community whose faith in the Coast
Guard was at a low-ebb because of a failure of leadership. Senior Chief
Downey, whose skills as a Boatswain's Mate are only exceeded by his
skills in dealing with people, not only mastered the treacherous
Chatham Bar, he won the loving respect of the community.
Senior Chief Downey's time in Chatham had both harrowing and amusing
moments. In 1991 Station Chatham acquired a much-needed new surf
capable rescue boat--the 28-foot
[[Page 12090]]
LeCompte (CG 280502). In October--shortly after the boat arrived, Cape
Cod and New England were slammed by the ``No Name'' or ``Halloween''
Storm--later known as the ``Perfect Storm.'' Downey and his crew
secured the boat in the north ``jog'' of the Chatham Fish Pier in
preparation for the onslaught of the storm. Little did they know just
how ferocious the gale would be--as the storm intensified and the tide
rose to record levels, boats broke loose from their moorings and debris
piled up in the jog. One fishing vessel landed up against the LeCompte,
prompting Downey to comment, ``Well that's a $120,000 fender you've got
there.''
In May of 1993, at the Change-of-Command, hundreds came from all over
Cape Cod to honor Jack Downey for his dedication and service to the
maritime community, and to wish him well in his next assignment across
Nantucket Sound at Coast Guard Station Brant Point on Nantucket Island,
Massachusetts, where he took command, as Officer-In-Charge, on May 17,
1993.
On June 26, 1998, Senior Chief Downey returned ``home'' to as
Officer-In-Charge of Coast Guard Station Point Judith, Rhode Island,
and was promoted to Master Chief on September 1, 1998.
While Officer-In-Charge of Station Point Judith Master Chief Downey
was called upon by the Group Commander to fill temporary commands
concurrent with his responsibilities for his Station. On one occasion,
when the Officer-In-Charge of CGC Hammerhead (WPB 87302) was not-fit-
for-duty due to a leg fracture, Master Chief Downey assumed command of
a brand new class of patrol boat with which he was completely
unfamiliar, and on another he returned to Station Brant Point on
Nantucket to lead the Station while the Officer-In-Charge was assigned
to a joint service academy. On both the occasions answered the call--
all the while ensuring that Station Point Judith ran smoothly and
fulfilled all its responsibilities.
Master Chief Downey left Point Judith and in 2000, and on August 10th
became the lead instructor for the Command and Operations School at the
Leadership and Development Center located at the Coast Guard Academy in
New London, Connecticut.
Master Chief Downey returned to sea duty on July 2, 2005 to take
command, for a second time, as Officer-In-Charge, of Coast Guard Cutter
Hammerhead (WPB 87302) an 87-foot Patrol Boat operating out of Group
Woods Hole with responsibility for law enforcement, fisheries patrols,
search and rescue, environmental protection and port, waterways and
coastal security.
On August 28, 2006, Master Chief Downey became the Command Master
Chief, First Coast Guard District, Boston, Massachusetts--the senior
enlisted advisor to Rear Admiral Timothy S. Sullivan, Commander, First
Coast Guard District, on issues and initiatives pertaining to all Coast
Guard members and their families within District One.
On June 20, 2008--after 41-years of continuous service in the United
States Coast Guard--Master Chief John E. ``Jack'' Downey returns to
Station Point Judith, Rhode Island where he will--with regret--retire.
Master Chief Downey has received many awards during his distinguished
career. Having held the position of Officer-In-Charge of boat force
units for more than 17 years of the more than 20 years he served in the
boat forces community, he was the first recipient of the Joshua James
Keeper Award--the ``Ancient Keeper'' award--that recognizes longevity
in the Coast Guard boat force operations. This award is named in honor
of Captain Joshua James--the most celebrated life-saver in U.S.
history--who served in the Massachusetts Humane Society and the U.S.
Life-Saving Service. James died at the age of 75 after drilling his
crew during a northeast gale in March of 1902 shortly after the tragic
loss of a life-saving crew off Monomoy Point in Chatham, Massachusetts.
Master Chief Downey's other Coast Guard awards include the
Meritorious Service Award with a gold star and operational
distinguishing device, the Coast Guard Commendation Medal with three
gold stars and an operational distinguishing device, the Coast Guard
Achievement Medal with operational distinguishing device, the Coast
Guard Good Conduct Medal with silver star, and the Letter of
Commendation with an operational distinguishing device. In addition to
his Coast Guard awards, Master Chief Downey is the recipient of the
prestigious NAVY League Douglas A. Monro Award that is ``awarded for
inspirational leadership . . . to the Coast Guard enlisted member who
has demonstrated outstanding leadership and professional competence.''
Madam Speaker, you may have noticed that Master Chief Downey has
managed to spend most of his career in Coast Guard District One, and
much of that in Group Woods Hole (now Sector Southeast New England).
His tremendous local knowledge of the treacherous waters in this region
added value to every one of his Coast Guard assignments--and he often
called on this local knowledge to keep Group Commanders ``out of
trouble.'' Master Chief is a leadership ``fixer''--the person you go to
when there is a unit in trouble.
The communities where Master Chief Downey has served have recognized
him with awards and proclamations too numerous to mention--they would
cover several walls were he to display them--because Jack understands
well the important roll the Coast Guard plays in the lives of New
England towns. Local officials, townspeople and fellow mariners have
recognized his great contribution and will miss his steadying hand.
In fact, a Group Commander once said that after Jack Downey retires,
``the Coast Guard should hire him back, not to train Officers-In-Charge
of small-boat stations, but rather to train Group Commanders.''
Throughout the Coast Guard--and particularly in Southeast New
England--there are Coast Guard men and women, Officers-In-Charge, who
were mentored by Master Chief Downey. Many of them--along with many
retired officers, including former District and Group Commanders,
fellow boat-drivers and shipmates--will join the Vice-Commandant and
the Atlantic Area Commander of the Coast Guard on June 20th to honor
his long service and dedication to the Coast Guard.
John E. ``Jack'' Downey's service to the country, the United States
Coast Guard and New England are best expressed in the words used by
Superintendent Sumner Increase Kimball when he spoke of Joshua James--
Here and there may be found men in all walks of life who
neither wonder or care how much or how little the world
thinks of them. They pursue life's pathway, doing their
appointed tasks without ostentation, loving their work for
the work's sake, content to live and do in the present rather
than look for the uncertain rewards of the future. To them
notoriety, distinction, or even fame, acts neither as a spur
not a check to endeavor, yet they are really among the
foremost of those who do the world's work.
Master Chief John E. ``Jack'' Downey is one of those men.