Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 for July 21, 2009

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[Issue]
[Pages 18381-18575]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 18381]]

VOLUME 155--PART 14

SENATE--Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The Senate met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Roland W. Burris, a Senator from the State of Illinois.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
God of grace and glory, in the darkness of our limited knowledge, we
turn to You whose dwelling place is light.
Today, send our lawmakers forth with Your light to do the right as
You give them the ability to see it. Lord, help them to keep their
minds on You so that Your peace will provide the foundation for their
confidence. In their dealings with each other, keep them from unkind
words and unkind silences. Kindle on the altar of their hearts a
devotion to freedom's cause in all the world, as You bring their
thoughts and actions into conformity to Your will. Lord, lift their
hearts in gratitude to You for our heritage in this land of rich
resources, high privilege, and durable freedom.
We pray in Your sovereign Name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Roland W. Burris 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, July 21, 2009.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Roland W. Burris, a Senator from the State of Illinois, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

Mr. BURRIS thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following leader remarks, if any, the Senate
will resume consideration of the Defense authorization bill. There will
be 2 hours of debate prior to a vote on the Levin-McCain amendment
regarding F-22 funding. Senators should expect the first vote to begin
shortly after 12 today. The Senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for
our weekly caucus luncheons. After that time, the bill will be open for
further amendment. I hope Members who have amendments they wish to
offer will do so at the earliest possible date.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1390, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1390) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Thune amendment No. 1618, to amend chapter 44 of title 18,
United States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed
carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry
concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed
carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of
the State.

amendment no. 1469

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1469.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself and Mr.
McCain, proposes amendment No. 1469.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike $1,750,000,000 in Procurement, Air Force funding
for F-22A aircraft procurement, and to restore operation and
maintenance, military personnel, and other funding in divisions A and B
that was reduced in order to authorize such appropriation)

At the end of subtitle A of title I, add the following:

SEC. 106. ELIMINATION OF F-22A AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT FUNDING.

(a) Elimination of Funding.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 103(1) for procurement for the Air
Force for aircraft procurement is hereby decreased by
$1,750,000,000, with the amount of the decrease to be derived
from amounts available for F-22A aircraft procurement.
(b) Restored Funding.--
(1) Operation and maintenance, army.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 301(1) for operation and
maintenance for the Army is hereby increased by $350,000,000.
(2) Operation and maintenance, navy.--The amount authorized
to be appropriated by section 301(2) for operation and
maintenance for the Navy is hereby increased by $100,000,000.
(3) Operation and maintenance, air force.--The amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 301(4) for operation
and maintenance for the Air Force is hereby increased by
$250,000,000.
(4) Operation and maintenance, defense-wide.--The amount
authorized to be appropriated by section 301(5) for operation
and maintenance for Defense-wide activities is hereby
increased by $150,000,000.

[[Page 18382]]

(5) Military personnel.--The amount authorized to be
appropriated by section 421(a)(1) for military personnel is
hereby increased by $400,000,000.
(6) Division a and division b generally.--In addition to
the amounts specified in paragraphs (1) through (5), the
total amount authorized to be appropriated for the Department
of Defense by divisions A and B is hereby increased by
$500,000,000.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there is
2 hours of debate on the amendment.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will strike $1.75 billion in
additional funding for F-22 aircraft that was in the committee-reported
bill. It will also restore serious cuts that were made in readiness and
military personnel accounts and across-the-board cuts. These cuts were
made in order to shift funds to support F-22 production. It is
appropriate that the F-22 issue receive the full consideration by the
Senate that it has received. The F-22 debate is among the most
important debates we will have on the DOD authorization bill this year.
Stating what may be one of the worst kept secrets in Washington
today, the Department of Defense budget request called for ending
production of several programs, including the F-22 program. I suspect
the Department of Defense will seldom shut down any major acquisition
program without a fair amount of controversy, and I agree with the
Senator from Georgia that Congress should never be a rubberstamp for
the executive branch. But neither should we object to terminating
production of a weapons system because of parochial reasons.
Terminating production, such as closing a base, can involve some
economic loss for communities involved. I know that very personally.
But we must do so from time to time and make these difficult decisions
based on what is best for the Nation and what is best for the men and
women of the Armed Forces.
As President Obama said the other day, in strong support of ending
the F-22 production:

To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste
valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to
provide our troops with the weapons that they actually do
need.

The Senate has heard from the senior leadership of the Defense
Department, both civilian and military, that we should end F-22
production. The recommendation is strong and clear, as strong and clear
as I have ever heard when it comes to ending the production of a
weapons system.
The Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air
Force sent me and Senator McCain a letter on this matter. This letter
is already part of the Record. It reads, in part, as follows:

This review concluded with . . . a balanced set of
recommendations for our fighter forces: 1) focus procurement
on modern 5th generation aircraft rather than less capable F-
15s and F-16s; 2) given that the F-35 will constitute the
majority of the future fighter force, transition as quickly
as is prudent to F-35 production; 3) complete F-22
procurement at 187 aircraft, while continuing plans for
future F-22 upgrades; and 4) accelerate the retirements of
the old 4th generation aircraft and modify the remaining
aircraft with necessary upgrades in capability.
In summary, we assessed the F-22 decision from all angles,
taking into account competing strategic priorities and
complementary programs and alternatives, all balanced within
the context of available resources. We did not and do not
recommend F-22s be included in the FY10 defense budget. This
is a difficult decision but one with which we are
comfortable. Most importantly, in this and other budget
decisions, we believe it is important for Air Force leaders
to make clear choices, balancing requirements across a range
of Air Force contributions to joint capabilities.

The Senate has also heard from the Secretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In their letter to me and
Senator McCain on July 13, Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen wrote the
following:

There is no doubt that the F-22 is an important capability
for our Nation's defense. To meet future scenarios, however,
the Department of Defense has determined that 187 aircraft
are sufficient, especially considering the future roles of
Unmanned Aerial Systems and the significant number of 5th
generation stealth F-35s coming on-line in our combat air
portfolio.
It is important to note that the F-35 is a half generation
newer aircraft than the F-22, and more capable in a number of
areas such as electronic warfare and combating enemy air
defenses. To sustain U.S. overall air dominance, the
Department's plan is to buy roughly 500 F-35s over the next
five years and more than 2,400 over the life of the program.
Furthermore, under this plan, the U.S. by 2020 is projected
to have some 2,500 manned fighter aircraft, almost 1,000 of
them will be 5th generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by
contrast, is expected to have only slightly more than half as
many manned fighter aircraft by 2020, none of them 5th
generation.
The F-22 program proposed in the President's budget
reflects the judgment of two different Presidents, two
different Secretaries of Defense, three chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and the current secretary and chief of staff
of the Air Force. If the Air Force is forced to buy
additional F-22s beyond what has been requested, it will come
at the expense of other Air Force and Department of Defense
priorities--and require deferring capabilities in areas we
believe are much more critical for our Nation's defense.
For all these reasons, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs concluded:

[W]e strongly believe that the time has come to close the
F-22 production line. If the Congress sends legislation to
the President that requires the acquisition of additional F-
22 aircraft beyond Fiscal Year 2009, the Secretary of Defense
will strongly recommend he veto it.

You do not get much stronger statements than that from a Secretary of
Defense and a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
The Secretary of Defense, just last Thursday, expanded on those
thoughts at the Economic Club in Chicago, when he said the following:

. . . supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use
for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range
from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles
to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to
go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with
AK-47s--a job we already know is better done at much less
cost by three Navy SEALS.

The Secretary, in Chicago, said:

These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments
have become for a program that has cost $65 billion--and
counting--to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the
thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were
sacrificed to help pay for it.

The Senate has also heard, of course, from President Obama, as
follows--this is what he wrote us:

In December 2004, the Department of Defense determined that
183 F-22s would be sufficient to meet its military needs.
This determination was not made casually. The Department
conducted several analyses which support this position based
on the length and type of wars that the Department thinks it
might have to fight in the future, and an estimate of the
future capabilities of likely adversaries. To continue to
procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources
that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops
with the weapons that they actually do need.

So the President, based on his uniformed and civilian advisers'
recommendations, has now said he will veto this bill if we keep the
additional $1.75 billion in the bill to buy the additional seven F-22s
those military leaders--uniformed and civilian--strongly say we do not
need.
I know my friend from Georgia has quoted some private sector
individuals and one senior military official in particular, GEN John
Corley, the Commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command.
I do not take lightly the recommendations and advice of someone with
a distinguished career such as General Corley. However, General
Corley's assessment of a high military risk if we end the buy of F-22s
at 187 is not shared by the most senior leadership of the Department
that is responsible for viewing the F-22 program, and all other
Department of Defense programs, from a broader perspective. These same
leaders from the previous administration--the previous Secretary of
Defense, the previous Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--
recommended termination to President Bush, and President Bush also
urged the termination of this program.
General Cartwright said at his confirmation hearing--or
reconfirmation hearing--2 weeks ago the following:

. . . I was probably one of the more vocal and ardent
supporters for the termination of the F-22 production. The
reason's twofold. First . . . there is a study in the Joint
Staff

[[Page 18383]]

that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force on
that, number one, said that proliferating within the United
States military fifth-generation fighters to all three
services was going to be more significant than having them
based solidly in just one service, because of the way we
deploy and because of the diversity of our deployments.

General Cartwright went on to say the following:

Point number two is, in the production of the F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter, the first aircraft variant will support the
Air Force replacement of their F-16s and F-15s. It is a very
capable aircraft. It is 10 years newer--

``It'' being the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter--

It is 10 years newer in advancement in avionics and
capabilities in comparison to the F-22. It is a better, more
rounded, capable fighter.

Well, that F-35 is in production now. In fact, there are 30 being
paid for and bought and produced in the very budget for the Department
of Defense which is before this body now.
President Eisenhower noted, from time to time, the military
industrial complex will push for more and more, more than is needed. In
this case, however--in this case--the senior military leadership is not
pushing for more.
Finally, to quote again from Secretary Gates's speech last week--this
was in Chicago at the Economic Club--

The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have
entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to
fund excess or unneeded capacity--whether for more F-22s or
anything else--is a dollar that will be unavailable to take
care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter
potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas
where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable.

Secretary Gates said:

That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take.

So, Mr. President, the time has come to end F-22 production at 187 F-
22As. That is all we need to buy, that is all we can afford to buy, and
that is all we should buy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our
time.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am going to proceed on my leader
time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Health Care Week VII, Day I

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Americans are eager for health care
reforms that lower costs and increase access. This is why many of us
are proposing reforms that should be easy for everyone to agree on,
such as reforming our medical liability laws, strengthening wellness
and prevention programs that would encourage people to make healthy
choices, such as quitting smoking and losing weight and addressing the
needs of small businesses without imposing new taxes that kill jobs.
The administration is taking a different approach to health care
reform, and the more Americans learn about it, the more concerned they
become. So it is good the President plans to spend a lot of his time in
the days ahead discussing the administration's plan for reform because
people need to know what the administration's plan is.
Specifically, Americans have concerns about losing the care they have
and spending trillions of dollars for a so-called reform that could
leave them with worse care than they have now, especially if it is paid
for by seniors and small business owners.
One prospect Americans are extremely concerned about is that they
will be forced off of their current plans as part of a government
takeover of health care. Despite repeated assurances from the
administration to the contrary, the independent Congressional Budget
Office says that just one section of one of the Democratic proposals we
have seen would force 10 million people off their current health plans.
Americans do not want a government takeover, and they certainly do
not want the government to spend trillions of their tax dollars to pay
for it, especially if the care they end up with is worse than the care
they already receive, and especially if the money that is spent on
these so-called reforms only adds to the national debt.
The President has repeatedly promised that his reform would not add
to the debt. Yet both the House and Senate reform bills we have seen
would do just that. This is why even Democrats have started to
backpedal from the administration's plans.
One reason Democrats are having second thoughts is because the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office has sounded the alarm over
the administration's claims that its reforms would cut long-term
overall health care costs. On the contrary, he said the
administration's reforms would actually lead to an increase in overall
costs. Concerns like these about costs and debt have been building
slowly for weeks.
Another growing concern even among Democrats is the impact these
higher costs would have on States in the form of higher Medicaid costs.
At a time of tight budgets, this is something that Governors from both
political parties are not very happy about.
For example, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has said, and I am
quoting him directly:
I'm personally very concerned about the cost issue,
particularly the $1 trillion figures being batted around.

Expanding Medicaid might look like an easy way to expand access, but
it will actually mean massive spending increases for both Federal and
State taxpayers. This could be a devastating blow to States such as
Kentucky and many others which are already struggling to pay the
Medicaid costs they currently owe.
The administration's efforts to pay for its plans are not the least
bit reassuring. The two main groups they are targeting are the last two
that should be expected to pay for it: seniors, through Medicare cuts,
and small business owners, through higher taxes.
To me, it is just common sense that in the middle of a recession the
last thing--the last thing--we should be doing is raising taxes on
small businesses. Yet both bills we have seen would do just that.
Indeed, under the House bill, taxes on some small businesses would rise
as high as roughly 45 percent. This means in order to pay for health
care reform, Democrats would increase the tax rate on some small
businesses to about 30 percent higher than the rate for big
corporations. Taxes would go up so much, in fact, under the House
proposal that the average combined Federal and State top tax rate for
individuals would be about 52 percent--52 percent, Mr. President.
Let's consider that figure for a moment. To repeat: In order to pay
for a health care proposal that would not even address all the concerns
Americans have about access and cost--and which might even increase
overall health care costs--Democrats in the House would raise the
average top tax rate in the United States to about 52 percent.
The chart behind me was created by the Heritage Foundation and
appeared last week in the Wall Street Journal. It shows that the House
bill would raise the top U.S. rate above even France. Of the 30
countries the OECD measures, only Belgium, Sweden, and Denmark have
higher rates, and five U.S. States would have tax rates even higher
than both Belgium and Sweden.
The United States is in the middle of a recession. We have lost more
than 2.5 million jobs since this January. Families are losing homes.
The last thing they need is a government takeover that kills even more
jobs, adds to the ballooning national debt, increases Americans' long-
term health care costs, and leaves Americans paying more for worse care
than they now receive. The proposals we have seen are not just
incomplete, they are indefensible, particularly at a time of spiraling
debt and ever-increasing job losses.
Maybe this is why the administration has started to insist on an
artificial deadline for getting its reform proposals through. We
certainly do not need to rush and spend $1 trillion to enact this
flawed proposal by the August recess. The American people and members
of both parties in Congress are calling on us to slow down and take the
time to get it right.

[[Page 18384]]

Health care reform is too important to rush through and get it wrong.
We saw what happened when some rushed and spent $1 trillion on an
artificial deadline with the stimulus. The American people do not want
the same mistake to be made. Instead of setting a 3-week deadline on
legislation that would end up affecting one-sixth of our economy, the
administration should focus on meeting existing deadlines.
The Mid-Session Review of the administration's earlier predictions
about unemployment, economic growth, government spending, and the
outlook for the Federal deficit has traditionally been released in mid-
July. Yet now we are hearing the administration may not release its
midsession review until August, after Congress has adjourned and after
the administration's artificial deadline for a Senate bill on health
care.
The administration is also struggling to meet its decision to close
Guantanamo by January 2010. The administration's task force on detainee
policy has said it will miss its deadline for making recommendations.
It seems premature to announce a closing date for Guantanamo without
knowing where these detainees may be sent. The most recent delay is
even more reason for the administration to show flexibility and
reconsider its artificial deadline for closing Guantanamo.
Americans want Republicans and Democrats to enact real health care
reform that reduces costs and makes health care more accessible. They
don't want a government takeover of the health care system that costs
trillions of dollars, is paid for by seniors and job-killing taxes on
small businesses and that leaves them paying more for worse care than
they currently have. Before the administration rushes to spend another
trillion dollars, it needs to slow down and focus on fixing our economy
and addressing the issues it is already falling behind on.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Levin-
McCain amendment on the F-22. I was listening with interest to the
chairman speak a little bit earlier when he raised several points that
I am going to address specifically as I get into the guts of the
argument. I think it is kind of interesting when he gives a list of
those individuals in the Pentagon and in the White House who are now in
opposition to continued production of the F-22. Interestingly enough,
everybody he talked about--from the President to the Secretary of
Defense, to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Chief of Staff of the
Air Force, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs--every single one of those
individuals is political. They are appointed. They are appointed by the
President.
I am going to talk about some individuals who are in support of the
F-22 who are not appointed. No. 1, they are the men and women who fly
the F-22. Secondly, it is men who have had the courage to wear the
uniform of the United States of America in an unparalleled way that I
have seen since I have been here, who have been willing to stand up to
that political leadership and say: You guys are wrong. They have been
willing to stand and say that if you cut off production of the F-22 at
187, you are going to put this country at a high risk from a national
security standpoint.
As we go through the debate, it is going to be interesting to
contrast the statements and the letters that every Member has received
a flurry of over the last several days. I have never seen the White
House lobby such as they have lobbied on this issue. For a White House
that was not supposed to be a lobbying White House or in support of
lobbyists, it has been unparalleled in my now going on 15 years as a
Member of the Congress.
Senator Levin spoke earlier about the F-35: We are going to ramp up
production. We are going to buy 30 airplanes, 30, in this budget. Well,
guess what we are paying for those airplanes. We are paying $200
million a copy. Guess what we are buying an F-22 for today--an airplane
that has been through the test phase; an airplane that has proved
itself. We are under a multiyear contract that calls for payment by the
Air Force to the contractor of $140 million a copy. There is going to
be a lot of conversation on this floor about the cost of the F-22, and
it is expensive: $140 million a copy is very expensive. But to come in
here with a straight face and say we are going to save taxpayers' money
by moving to the F-35 and then turn around and say we are going to pay
$200 million a copy in this bill for F-35s, something about that
doesn't add up.
Well, let me just say we are in a debate with the Pentagon with
respect to budgetary issues submitted by the Pentagon to Congress.
There are a lot of people who think we ought to step in line, salute
the Pentagon and move ahead and do exactly what the Pentagon says with
respect to the purchase of weapons systems. Well, that is not the way
the Framers of the Constitution intended the Senate and the House to
work. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with
the power to levy and collect taxes, provide for the common defense of
the United States, to raise and support armies and to make rules for
the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Clearly, we in Congress have a role in overseeing the Department of
Defense, reviewing budgets, and questioning budget and policy
recommendations. Our interest and involvement in these issues are
appropriate and not just based on parochial issues. We are charged with
the responsibility of reviewing DOD policies, whether fiscal policies
or otherwise. That is simply a part of our job.
I think it is important to note that on several occasions in recent
years, Congress has authorized policy or funding initiatives that DOD
has strongly opposed and, in retrospect, Congress was right and DOD was
wrong. Perhaps the most similar example to the F-22 is the battle over
the F-117 that occurred many years ago when the Air Force wanted to
stop buying F-117s. Thank goodness my predecessor, Senator Sam Nunn,
who was then chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, forced
the Air Force to buy more F-117s. Ironically, part of the Air Force's
argument was that they wanted to shift funding and focus to buying more
F-22s. The F-117 was critical to establishing air dominance over Iraq
in Desert Storm, and we can thank Congress for recognizing the need for
more F-117s years ago.
There are several other examples, such as the Goldwater-Nichols
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the establishment of Special Operations
Command in 1987, both of which were strongly opposed by the Pentagon.
Other examples are continuation of the V-22 program and prohibition
against retiring U-2s and B-52s, all of which are paying dividends
beyond what the military expected, including in Iraq and Afghanistan
today.
I wish to address a comment Senator Levin and others have made
regarding previous Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs supporting only 183--or 187 now, with the addition of four F-22s
we are buying in the supplemental. First, that number of 183 originally
was established not on the basis of any study or analysis--never a
study that came out and said we need 183 and we are going to be basing
our decision on that--but it was based on PBD 753, which is inside
Washington baseball, which was an OSD budget drill 2 days before
Christmas in 2004, in which the Air Force had absolutely no input.
Neither the Chief of Staff nor the Secretary was involved. A number of
``183'' or ``187'' has always been budget driven and not strategically
driven.
There have been at least 10 studies done on F-22 numbers over the
past 10 years. Of those, only one, the Joint Air Dominance Study done
by DOD in 2005, recommended 183 F-22s. However, that study was based on
only needing F-22s in a single-threat scenario and which also used a
fixed budget.
Senator Levin mentioned the comments General Cartwright made in the
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing 2 weeks ago. And he relies
heavily on the statement General Cartwright made. General Cartwright
responded to a question I asked, and my

[[Page 18385]]

question to General Cartwright was: General, you say you support
terminating the F-22 program at 187. Has there been any one single
study, in the Air Force or outside the Air Force, any analysis done
that recommends we terminate the program at 187? General Cartwright's
statement to me was: Yes; there is a study going on in the Air Force
right now that says we should terminate the program at 187.
Well, unfortunately for General Cartwright, we now know no study was
done. It is our understanding that the comment of General Cartwright is
being corrected for the record and that we are receiving a corrected
statement coming to the committee shortly.
I wish to quote from a statement by Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell
that was made last Tuesday with respect to the comments of General
Cartwright. This comment is quoted in the Daily Report. It now turns
out that a recent study touted by Pentagon leadership as the
justification for terminating the F-22 fighter isn't a study at all but
a series of briefings by DOD's program analysis and evaluation shop in
the Air Force. That word comes from the Pentagon's top spokesman, Geoff
Morrell, who told the Daily Report late Tuesday that the study, or
whatever it is, is: Not so much a study as work products.
Asked to describe the nature and timing of this study, Morrell told
the Daily Report:

What I think General Cartwright was referring to . . . is
two different work products--

One by the PA&E shop and one by the Air Force--

and not so much a study.

Since PDB 753, only 183 F-22s have been programmed in the budget,
with fiscal year 2009 being the last year of funding. To say previous
Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs supported this
is misleading since, until the fiscal year 2010 budget bill process, a
decision on whether to buy more F-22s would be deferred to future
decisionmakers. It is perhaps with this in mind that Secretary Gates
himself decided last year to request additional F-22s in the fiscal
year 2009 supplemental, and he did, in order to keep the line open and
preserve the next administration's option for procurement of the F-22.
I know the former President, President Bush, did not want to see the
program terminated. They can say what they want to on the other side,
but having had personal conversations, I know what his feeling was
about this great aircraft. He could have terminated the program, but he
did not terminate the program. It is this administration that is
seeking to terminate this program.
There have been five previous Secretaries of the Air Force, six
previous Chiefs of Staff of the Air Force, seven previous Secretaries
of Defense before this one, and eight previous commanders of Air Combat
Command who have said we need more F-22s. We have supported this
program from day one. We have continued to reduce the number from the
original 781, now down to 187. The current Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, whose letters have been quoted and inserted in the Record where
he says we should cap it at 187, has testified time and time and time
again in recent days and in recent weeks and who has written me letters
stating that the military requirement for F-22s is not 187, it is 243,
but he says we can't afford it. Therefore, he has to salute his boss.
His boss is a political appointee--Secretary Gates--and the political
appointee says we are going to cap it at 187; therefore, that is the
direction in which we are going to go and the direction in which you
have to salute the flag and move on.
I am going to close my comments at this time and turn to my colleague
from Connecticut. Before I do so, I will quote somebody who is not
political, somebody who is not an appointee, somebody who is a former
Chief of Staff of the Air Force. That is GEN Merrill McPeak, who, last
week, in an unsolicited statement, came out and said, when he talked
about terminating the F-22 production rate at 187:

I think it's a real mistake. . . . The airplane is a game-
changer and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of
our soldiers or Marines killed by enemy air since 1951. . . .
It's been half a century or more since any enemy aircraft has
killed one of our guys.
The F-22 is at the top end. We have to procure enough of
them for our ability to put a lid on, to dictate the ceiling
of any conflict. We certainly need some figure well above
200. That worries me because I think it is pennywise and
pound foolish to expose us in a way this much smaller number
does. . . . That's taking too much high-end risk.

General McPeak is a supporter of this administration and, as far as
we can tell, he is not a consultant for any major defense contractor.
For this reason, I think his comments deserve significant attention and
credibility.
I will stop at this point, but I will say more later. I now turn to
my colleague, Senator Dodd, who I will say has been a great champion on
this issue, a great partner in support of not just the men and women of
the Air Force and our other branches that depend on this weapon system
to protect America and our soldiers in the field but also a great
protector from an economic standpoint.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains for those of us in
opposition?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 44\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DODD. I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes, and if I need a
little more, I will ask for it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut is
recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend Senator Chambliss for his eloquent
and persuasive argument about why this amendment is a dangerous one,
and I say that respectfully. I have great admiration for Carl Levin and
John McCain, but there are serious problems with this approach, from a
national security standpoint as well as a manufacturing and industrial
base standpoint.
To put this into context for our colleagues, we are being asked to
authorize $1.75 billion, or two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget
before us of $680 billion. We are told there are at least 25,000 direct
jobs and 95,000 direct and indirect jobs at stake for that $1.75
billion--again, two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget--which Senator
Chambliss has offset, by the way. It is not an expenditure that is not
going to be accounted for.
We are going to put those jobs at risk--not because this industry is
in trouble, unlike the automobile industry, which we bailed out to the
tune of $63 billion, by the way--understanding the reason many of us
supported that was to maintain an industrial manufacturing base.
In this case, we lead the world in aerospace. Nobody comes even close
to the ability of the United States to produce the most sophisticated
aircraft in the world. Yet with an industry doing relatively well--
although commercial orders are way down, which is causing serious
problems but that is as a result of the economic conditions. We are
unwilling to come up with $1.75 billion or two-tenths of 1 percent to
put those many jobs at risk, not to mention retreating on our air
superiority.
One of the critical components of national security is maintaining
superiority both at sea and in the air. The F-22, by any estimation, is
the most superior aircraft in the world. It is not even close in terms
of competitors. Yet with the numbers we have and that we are relying
on, we leave ourselves way short of the earlier projected numbers.
As Senator Chambliss pointed out, the testimony over the years of
those who advocated this program has been significant. In fact, in the
letter most recently received from General Corley, head of the Air
Combat Command Office, headquartered at Langley, VA, June 9, it points
out how serious this would be in terms of exposing our Nation to
national security risks. The head of the Air National Guard Bureau,
Lieutenant General Wyatt, makes the same claim. Chief of Staff
Schwartz, before he changed his mind a week earlier, advocated the F-22
as well, and its importance.
From both a manufacturing perspective and job loss, at a time when
unemployment rates are skyrocketing, this

[[Page 18386]]

body is about to lay off anywhere from 25,000 to 90,000 people--at a
time when unemployment rates are going up, because we decided that
$1.75 billion is too expensive at this juncture, even though we have
offset it, and we have put that many jobs at risk, not because the
industry is failing or because it is a bad aircraft but because the
Secretary of Defense and the administration have decided this program
isn't worthy of our support.
So explain to those 90,000 people--somewhere in that range--once they
lose their jobs and get laid off, and they will--why it was we decided
today, because of two-tenths of 1 percent of the budget, to move in a
different direction. Put aside, if you will, the $63 billion we spent
to develop this aircraft.
I raised these concerns expressed by our military commanders--again,
most notably, GEN John Corley of the Air Combat Command, LTG Harry
Wyatt of the Air National Guard--I have mentioned them. In my State,
there are 2,000 to 3,000 jobs at risk, and 1,000 of the jobs are down
because commercial orders are down. So it is really 2,000 to 4,000
people in my State who will lose their jobs.
No matter how much I care about the people in my State, I could not
oppose this exclusively on that basis. You ought to look nationwide. It
is not just my State; it is all across the country.
I raised concerns about what this amendment would do to our global
competitiveness and discussed the potential harm to our economy posed
by terminating the world's most advanced fighter jet.
I raised concerns over the industry's ability to build the less
sophisticated F-35--which has only one engine not two, and the word
``stealthy'' applied to the F-35 is a myth; it is not as stealthy, even
remotely, as the F-22--that the United States and its allies are
counting on buying over the next decade.
Mr. President, before I revisit these critically important arguments,
let's be clear on the context in which we are having this debate. The
proponents of this amendment suggest they are saving taxpayers valuable
resources in terminating the F-22. They claim such cost savings are
well worth the risk Generals Corley and Wyatt have warned us about.
But out of a total of $680 billion in the Defense authorization bill,
this amendment is valued at $1.75 billion. That is two-tenths of 1
percent of the total authorization. Since the planes are fully offset,
there are no real savings in this amendment.
Instead, this amendment will come at enormous cost to our security
and our economy. We are in the midst of a national manufacturing
crisis. Everybody has talked about it. It is why we voted for so much
support for the automobile industry only a few weeks ago right here in
this body.
According to the Federal Reserve's July 15, 2009, Industrial
Production and Capacity Utilization Report, manufacturing production
has declined 15.5 percent nationwide, between June 2008 and June 2009.
I will repeat that: There has been an over 15 percent decline in our
manufacturing sector. This quarter's manufacturing production is the
lowest in 27 years, which was the previous low point in production
since 1967, when the Fed started to keep track of the data.
We in Congress tried to respond to this crisis. We passed the
Emergency Economy Stabilization Act, designed to relieve credit markets
and get banks lending again.
We passed the $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to
stimulate the economy and boost demand in various sectors and put
people back to work.
We have provided $63 billion to Chrysler and General Motors to keep
their production lines running--companies that were brought to their
knees, in part, due to dismal business planning and severe
mismanagement of their companies over the years.
Additionally, the government has acquired unprecedented equity stakes
in these companies--8 percent in Chrysler and a whopping 60 percent in
General Motors.
I have not opposed these efforts. As chairman of the Banking
Committee, I worked with my colleagues who represent those States to
provide Federal assistance through the legislative process. But we took
this step because we were responding to a national manufacturing
crisis. We did it because we are responding to the dire and credible
warnings about the potential impact of the auto industry's collapse--
particularly in Midwestern States, which greatly depend on the auto
business.
I will discuss briefly another critically important manufacturing
base and its economic impact: the aerospace industry.
While my home State of Connecticut ranks 29th in total population,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it ranks sixth in total
aerospace employment.
In 2008, according to the Connecticut Department of Labor, aerospace
employed over 36,000 residents of my State. So any discussion of
terminating the fighter jet production has an outsize effect on the
people I represent.
I would not be arguing this case for the F-22 if it were strictly a
parochial matter. We don't have a right to ask 99 other people
exclusively because of something happening in our own States. The truth
is, halting this production will have consequences for our industry's
ability to continue to build aircraft for our military. I will lay out
the argument for you.
The expertise of these people cannot be duplicated overnight. These
trained engineers, scientists, manufacturers, and machinists are highly
skilled and trained. I am concerned their skill sets and experience are
being taken for granted, without consideration for the peculiarities of
jet engine construction. That doesn't just hurt the workers and their
families; it hurts all of us. Let me explain how.
According to the Defense Contract Management Agency, there is a 20-
to 24-month lag between payment for and production of jet engines. So
the number of planes ordered in any 1 given year doesn't correspond
with the delivery time of those engines.
Under Secretary of Defense Gates's plan in calendar year 2010, Pratt
& Whitney is expected to make 48 F-22 engines and 19 F-35 engines, for
a total of 67 fighter jet engines. The following year, the number will
drop precipitously to a total of 43 engines, since the F-35 is not
scheduled to begin what is called ``full-rate production'' until 2014.
Thus, in calendar year 2011, Pratt & Whitney will be producing 11 F-
22 engines and 32 F-35 engines, for a total of 43 fighter engines. In
2012, since there will be no F-22 production, there will only be 41 F-
35 engines built.
The problem is even more acute when you compare overall military
engines being built in 2010 versus 2011 and 2012. Under current plans,
Pratt & Whitney is expected to go from building 194 military engines to
130 in 2011. That is an average drop of 33 percent in work volume.
What will happen? It is the same thing occurring in manufacturing
States all across the country: layoffs. Thousands and thousands of
people--not just in my State but across the country.
In the absence of military aircraft work orders for 3 years,
companies will be forced to tell the legions of highly skilled
engineers, technicians, and machinists--workers such as the Pratt &
Whitney mechanics I introduced and mentioned last week--that they are
not needed now. They need to retrain. They need to find another
vocation.
Then, 3 years later, after these workers have settled in a new job,
or have retired, the Department of Defense and our allies will try to
ramp up production of the F-35. But they will not be able to. They will
be left scratching their heads, wondering: Why can't industry meet our
production needs right now? No doubt, we will ask the same question on
the Senate floor.
To assume that the thousands of workers across the Nation who work on
the F-22 will stand idly by until 2014 when we begin to build the F-35
Joint Strike Fighter is naive at best. This argument I make is not new
at all. The Defense Department recognized this point in the 2006
Quadrennial Defense

[[Page 18387]]

Review, published by the military to identify the needs and strategy of
our Armed Forces.
The report stated that F-22 production should be extended ``through
fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear acquisition contract to ensure the
Department does not have a gap in fifth generation stealth
capabilities.''
At the same time, the F-35 was scheduled to begin construction in
2010. Since then, of course, it has been pushed back 4 years to 2014.
There are some rumors that this date may be pushed back even further.
This means the military identified only 3 years ago--36 months ago--
the most recent published report of this type, that our Nation would
suffer a loss in aerospace manufacturing capability if fighter
production doesn't have a seamless transition.
Their response was to ensure that we keep building F-22s until the F-
35 reached full-rate production. Yet when the F-35 production schedule
was pushed back 4 years, we did not extend the F-22 production to
stabilize our industrial base. That is why you have the job losses I
have mentioned.
Now we find ourselves in the very situation the Department of Defense
was trying to avoid 36 months ago, as we face looming job losses across
our Nation, commercial orders down--losing these people on that basis
and now because of the vote we may take on this issue--and thus a
degradation of our ability to meet the aerospace production capability
our national security requires. So I believe it is our duty and
responsibility to protect these workers from losing their employment
and make sure our country retains a viable and competitive capacity in
the years ahead.
Let me also point out--and I did the other day on a national security
basis--that, again, superiority is critical. Right now, there are some
40 nations that have the SU-27, which is a sophisticated aircraft, and
the MiG-29, which competes with the F-15 and the F-16. Forty nations
have that capability. I had a larger chart earlier--I don't have it
with me today--but there are little red and yellow dots all over this
map that indicate advanced surface-to-air missile capability where
there have been orders made or they have already been acquired. Our F-
15s and F-16s are vulnerable to those surface-to-air missiles. All over
the globe they exist.
The F-22 literally could avoid the kind of detection these surface-
to-air missiles provide. So we now have a capacity to be able to
respond. Now we may not--and as long as we are dealing with Afghanistan
and Iraq, that is one issue. But, frankly, we have to prepare for
situations that could get a lot more dangerous for our Nation. The
Chinese and the Russians are aggressively pursuing a fifth generation
aircraft to compete with the F-22. And to say that the F-22 and the F-
35 are virtually alike I think is a mistake. That is not the case at
all. There is a difference.
From a national security standpoint as well, there was a reason why
General Corley and General Wyatt and others have made a case on these
aircraft. There is a reason why we invested some $65 billion to develop
this aircraft. There is a reason why the quadrennial report 36 months
ago warned about these gaps and what it would do to our industrial base
and manufacturing.
I hope our colleagues, in the midst of all of this, would understand
what is at stake. Again, here we are, on an economic basis, where many
jobs could be lost in our country with critical technology that hangs
in the balance. It would be one thing if we were arguing here this
plane was no longer needed, it was not going to do the job we thought
it would do, it wasn't as sophisticated as we hoped it would be. Then
you might decide dropping this, giving up some jobs, may make some
sense. But to give up an aircraft of this sophistication and this
capability, and simultaneously, in an economic situation such as we are
in, to lose as we are predicting somewhere between 25,000 and 90,000
jobs with this decision, for $1.75 billion in this budget--two-tenths
of 1 percent out of a $680 billion authorization bill, I think is
terribly shortsighted.
I hope my colleagues would listen to these arguments, would debate
and understand there is an ability, to reach a compromise where we can
go forward with production, reduce some of the cost that the proponents
argue for in this amendment, and then move toward together. But to make
the decision that we may make in the next hour and a half or so would
be a great danger for our Nation.
I appreciate my colleague Senator Chambliss giving me the opportunity
to respond on this issue, and I thank him for his work as well in
making the case to our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans. This
ought not to be an issue that divides along those lines at all. We need
to understand what is at stake for our Nation, both in terms of our
manufacturing base as well as the national security needs that have
been identified.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the two letters, one from General Corley and one from General Wyatt.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Department of the Air Force,

Headquarters Air Combat Command,

Langley Air Force Base, VA, June 9, 2009.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chambliss: Thank you for your letter and the
opportunity to comment on the critical issue of F-22 fleet
size. At Air Combat Command we have held the need for 381 F-
22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our
Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed,
asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my
opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current
national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-
term.
To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187
F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.
Air Combat Command analysis, done in concert with
Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk force can be
obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft.
While OSD did not solicit direct input from Air Combat
Command, we worked closely with our Headquarters in ensuring
our views were available. We realize the tough choices our
national leadership must make in balancing current
warfighting needs against the fiscal realities our Nation
faces.
The F-22, a critical enabler of air dominance, plays a
vital role and indispensable role in ensuring joint freedom
of action for all forces and underpins our ability to
dissuade and deter. Thank you for your continued support of
the U.S. Air Force and Air Combat Command.
Sincerely,

John D.W. Corley,

General, USAF,
Commander.
____

Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chambliss: Thank you for your inquiry and the
opportunity for me to discuss what I believe to be a serious
threat to the Air National Guard's ability to fulfill our
Nation's highest strategic priority; defending the Homeland.
The ANG has proudly performed the bulk of this mission, while
simultaneously participating in overseas contingency
operations, with aircraft that are rapidly nearing the end of
their service life. While I believe our Nation has the
capacity to recapitalize the ANG, I am not aware of any plan
that commits to doing so. As such, we are in need of an
immediate solution in order to ensure that America's most
cost effective force can continue to perform its most
important mission.
While a variety of solutions abound, I believe the nature
of the current and future asymmetric threats to our Nation,
particularly from seaborne cruise missiles, requires a
fighter platform with the requisite speed and detection to
address them. The F-22's unique capability in this arena
enables it to handle a full spectrum of threats that the
ANG's current legacy systems are not capable of addressing. I
am fond of saying that ``America's most important job should
be handled by America's best fighter''.
Indeed, I am keenly aware of the severe strain that our
current economic situation has placed on the Department of
Defense as it attempts to modernize for an ever evolving
threat environment. Given this reality, finding more
efficient ways to protect our Nation's interests at home and
abroad is the new imperative. Many say this will mean making
tough choices, but I believe we can maintain our vitality by
making smart choices; leveraging the cost effective and dual
use nature of the ANG is the answer. Basing F-22s (and
eventually F-35s) at strategic ANG locations throughout the
United States while simultaneously making them available to
rotationally support worldwide

[[Page 18388]]

contingency operations is the most responsible approach to
satisfying all of our Nation's needs.
Again, thank you for your inquiry and your continued
support of the Air National Guard.
Sincerely,

Harry M. Wyatt III,

Lieutenant General, USAF,
Director, Air National Guard.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute to give the
figures relative to the F-35 production, which are the Pentagon
figures. I am not sure where my good friend from Connecticut got his
figures on future F-35 production. But the figures from the Pentagon
are that there are 30 in this year's budget; in next year's budget,
fiscal year 2011, they plan 70 F-35s; in fiscal year 2012, 109 F-35s;
in fiscal year 2013, 119 F-35s. Those are far different than the
numbers which my friend from Connecticut just gave.
I am not sure the source of his numbers. Perhaps he can give us those
numbers at a later time.
At this point, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, if I may respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I wanted to state where the numbers came from. They are
from the Defense Contracting Management Agency. That is where the
numbers came from.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, today, I would like to speak in strong
support of the Levin-McCain amendment which strips $1.75 billion in
spending for additional F-22s. These are fighter jets the military does
not want and does not need. This is a Cold War system, in a post-9/11
world, that is underperforming and overpriced. To force this purchase,
against the best judgment of our military leadership and Commander in
Chief, weakens our ability to keep our Nation safe.
The White House and Pentagon agree that continuing the F-22
production line decreases our military readiness by wasting resources
that could be much more usefully employed. And it is not a partisan
issue. Presidents Obama and Bush; Defense Secretaries Gates and
Rumsfeld; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and
his two predecessors; and the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air
Force all agree that the F-22 is not the most efficient or effective
warplane to meet our current and future defense needs.
The F-22 has not flown one mission over Afghanistan or Iraq, because
it is not the best weapon to meet the challenges we are currently
facing.
This system was designed to counter Soviet fighters at the end of the
Cold War. And its continued purchase deprives the military of $1.75
billion it requested for other critical priorities, such as building
the capability to protect our troops and defeat insurgencies.
With ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we cannot afford to
disregard the views of our military. And in these tough economic times,
we cannot afford to adopt an irresponsible approach to defense
spending. These facts speak for themselves, and the stakes are simply
too high. What more evidence do we need?
The F-22 prepares us for the wars of the past; the wars we have
already won. Today, we must look forward and make tough decisions for
the future. We must heed the advice of our military leaders, such as
Secretary Gates, to rebalance our defense budget and enhance our
capabilities to succeed against current and future threats. This
includes preparing for a wide spectrum of conflict and continuing to
engage in counterinsurgency.
Madam President, this debate is not just about the future of F-22s.
It is about changing the way we do business. It is about accepting this
rebalancing and ending unnecessary waste. And it is about matching
vital national security interests with commensurate levels of funding.
The F-22 is the first test of our willingness to make the tough
choices necessary to truly prioritize defense spending.
As Secretary Gates said last week:

The grim reality is that with regard to the budget, we have
entered into a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted
to fund excess or unneeded capacity--whether for more F-22s
or anything else--is a dollar that will be unavailable to
take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter
potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas
where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable.
That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take.

Madam President, I want to align myself with the remarks of Secretary
Gates, and reiterate to my colleagues that this is a risk none of us
should be willing to take.
Many of my colleagues have spoken of the sacrifice and cost such a
decision incurs in terms of jobs. They are right, and I share their
concern about jobs; especially in these tough times. I know this makes
our decision today hard, and no one wants to do anything that will
hinder job creation and growth. But it is with these economic
constraints in mind that we must also consider the implications of
spending nearly $2 billion on a defense program that our military
leadership says it simply does not need.
Building more F-22s does not allow for smart or efficient growth of
our workforce. Moreover, the number of jobs lost on the F-22 will
likely be matched by increased production of the F-35, which is a newer
and more capable warplane. American workers are needed to meet this and
other defense priorities, which strengthen our national security. Jobs
should follow, as opposed to dictate, our defense needs.
For those concerned about cuts, I point out that the budget proposed
by the President and Secretary Gates represents an increase, not a
decrease, in defense spending. But this is not just an increase for the
sake of spending.
Rather, it is a budget that recognizes that over the last two
decades, the nature of conflict and war has fundamentally changed. It
recognizes that we must continue to build the capacity to confront a
wide spectrum of challenges--conventional and unconventional; regular
and irregular--and better prepare for a future in which we will
continue to engage in counterinsurgency.
Today, we must do what is in America's best interest. Today, we must
focus on weapons systems that offer the maximum versatility and
effectiveness, and prepare the military against the widest range of
threats. And today, we must plan for our current and future
counterinsurgency needs, as shaped by our experiences in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
It is in this regard that I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting the Levin-McCain amendment, and adopt a better approach to
defense spending.
Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAUFMAN. 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. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
during the quorum call be charged equally on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Washington, Mrs. Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator for yielding time
on this important debate.
As we consider the future of the F-22 program, it is important for us
to remember the most fundamental goal we have for our defense industry
and the

[[Page 18389]]

way we have met that goal for many decades. That goal is to give our
men and women in uniform technology and equipment that is far superior
to that of our enemy so they can protect themselves and defend our
Nation. It has been our mission from the time of the Wright brothers to
the days of Rosie the Riveter, to the era of stealthy technology.
But maintaining that technology has depended on an important
partnership and that is a partnership between the Pentagon, which
determines the needs of our war fighters, and industry, which does the
research and design and builds the next generation of military
equipment that meets those needs. It is a partnership that is vital to
our military strength, to our economy, and to the health of our
domestic industrial base.
Unfortunately, it is also a partnership that is being weakened by
amendments such as the one we are considering today. Instead of
treating military procurement such as the partnership that it is, this
amendment envisions it as a one-way street. This amendment cancels a
vital military program without adequate thought of the men and women we
rely on to design and build the equipment our war fighters depend on
without any consideration of the fact that if we end the F-22 program,
we are cutting a link in technology that we will not be able to repair
overnight.
As many of you know, this is not the first time I have come to the
floor to talk about the erosion of our Nation's industrial base. It
likely will not be the last. That is because protecting our domestic
base is not about just one company or one program or one State or one
industry. This is about our Nation's economic stability, it is about
our future military capability, and it is about the ability to retain
skilled family-wage jobs in communities throughout the country.
Just last week, the Aerospace Industries Association issued a major
report that finds the Pentagon failed to consider industrial effects
when choosing strategies. That report urged the Pentagon to take into
account the impact decisions such as the one to stop production of the
F-22 make on our manufacturing base. That report also noted that our
manufacturing base was not taken into account in past Quadrennial
Defense Reviews, and when Secretary Gates unveiled his program cuts in
April, he specifically said defense industry jobs were not a factor in
his decisions.
As our country faces two difficult but not unrelated challenges--
safeguarding our country in a dangerous world and rebuilding a
faltering economy--ignoring the needs of our industrial base should not
be an option. Whether it is the scientists who are designing the next
generation of military satellites or whether it is the engineers who
are improving our radar systems or the machinists assembling our war
planes, these industries and their workers are one of our greatest
strategic assets. What if they, all of a sudden, were not available?
What if we made budgetary and policy decisions that did not take into
account the need of making sure we have a strong domestic workforce in
our country?
Actually, that is not impossible or even unthinkable. It is actually
happening today. We need to be clear about the ramifications of
amendments such as the ones we are considering today because once we
give up on producing this technology, once we say that certain research
and development is no longer needed, we lose that. We lose it and we
cannot rebuild it overnight.
Today, as we consider a critical tool for the future of our military
across the globe, we have to also remember the partnership we have
built with our industrial base because, unless we consider the needs of
that partnership, we are not only going to continue to lose some of our
best-paying American jobs, we are going to lose the backbone of our
military might.
Supporting continued F-22 production will help defend against
potential threats, it will protect family-wage jobs, and, most
importantly, it will preserve our domestic base. That is important
because we do not know what conflict will come in the future. We don't
know what our challenges will be 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years from now.
If we lose our engineering or our production base and we face a
challenge in the future and go back to rebuild that, it will never
happen. We will be at a disadvantage in whatever future conflict we
might face.
I urge our colleagues to think about the long-term interests of this
decision. I oppose the amendment and I look forward to further debate.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 35\1/2\ minutes, the
opponents have 18\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the Senator from Arizona as much of that time
as he requires.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the chair. I, again, thank my
friend, the distinguished chairman, for proposing this amendment. I
thank the distinguished chairman for being the sponsor of this
amendment. It is a privilege to work with him on this as well as many
other issues.
This amendment is probably the most impactful amendment I have seen
in this body on almost any issue, much less the issue of defense. It
boils down to whether we are going to continue the business as usual of
once a weapons system gets into full production it never dies or
whether we are going to take the necessary steps to reform the
acquisition process in this country.
The F-22, in itself, is $1.75 billion. That is an impressive number
anyplace outside the beltway. But more important than that, it is a
signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems that
are plagued with cost overruns, which outlive their requirements for
defending this Nation and, very frankly, starts to gain control of the
acquisition process which is completely out of control.
The Government Accountability Office recently concluded that there
were over $295 billion in cost overruns in the last several years--$295
billion in cost overruns. Recently, a close friend of mine and great
leader and former Secretary of the Navy wrote an article in the Wall
Street Journal. He stated:

When John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967, he was
flying an A-4 sky hawk. That jet cost $860,000.

By the way, I didn't know that cost to the taxpayers I had caused.
But the jet cost $860,000.

Inflation has risen by 700 percent since then. So Mr.
McCain's A-4 cost $6.1 million in 2008 dollars. Applying a
generous factor of three for technological improvements, the
price for a 2008 Navy F-18 fighter should be $18 million.
Instead, we are paying about $90 million for each new
fighter. As a result, the Navy cannot buy sufficient numbers.
This is disarmament without a treaty.
The situation is worse in the Air Force.

Then Secretary Lehman says:

In 1983, I was in the Pentagon meeting that launched the F-
22 Raptor. The plan was to buy 648 jets beginning in 1996 for
$60 million each. . . .

That was in 1983 dollars.

Now they cost $350 million apiece and the Obama budget caps
the program at 187 jets.

Then he adds:

At least they are safe from cyberattack since no one in
China knows how to program the '83 vintage IBM software that
runs them.

He then goes on to cite other problems, including Navy shipbuilding
fiascoes, et cetera.

. . . the Army's Future Combat System that was meant to re-
equip the entire Army, the 400 percent cost overrun of the
new Air Force weather satellite . . .

And similar cost overruns.
It is out of control, I say to my colleagues. I will match my
commitment to equipping the men and women in the military with that of
anyone in this body, but it has to stop, and this vote on the F-22 will
determine whether it is business as usual with the earmarking and pork-
barreling of billions of dollars which has bred corruption--we have
former Members of the Congress residing in Federal prison--or whether
we are going to finally get it under control.
Who better to be a spokesperson, in my view, than our Secretary of
Defense? I have known and admired many

[[Page 18390]]

Secretaries of Defense. I know of no one whom I admire more than
Secretary Gates. He gave a very important speech, on July 16, at the
Economic Club of Chicago--a remarkable speech. I hope all my colleagues
would have the chance to read it. In part of it he says, about the
problems we are having in defense spending:

First, there is the Congress, which is understandably
concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about
protecting jobs in certain states and congressional
districts. There is the defense and aerospace industry, which
has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of
these programs.
And there is the institutional military itself--within the
Pentagon, and as expressed through an influential network of
retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid
consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are
quoted as experts in the news media.

Secretary Gates goes on to say:

As a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end
failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside.
Nonetheless, I determined in a triumph of hope over
experience, and the President agreed--

I wish to emphasize my strong support and appreciation for the
President's stand on this issue.

--and the President agreed, that given the urgency of the
wars we are in, the daunting global security environment we
will inhabit for decades to come, and our country's economic
problems, we simply cannot afford to move ahead with business
as usual.

Then, later on, he talks about the F-22.

Air superiority and missile defense--two areas where the
budget has attracted the most criticism--provide case
studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22
fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future
conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix
of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to
deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air
supremacy. For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles
that can simultaneously perform intelligence,
reconnaissance--

Et cetera.
The President's budget would buy 48 of the most advanced
UAVs. We also took into consideration the capabilities of the
newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-
22.

He goes on to say how important the F-35 is, and then he says:

The F-22 is clearly a capability we do need--a niche,
silver-bullet solution for one or two potential scenarios--
specifically the defeat of a highly advanced enemy fighter
fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense
anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict.

I ask my colleagues, would you ask yourselves why the F-22 has never
flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been in production for nearly 5
years. It has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. And I want to
emphasize that I think it is an important fighter. We are building 187
of them. The question before this body is why we continue to build
more, whether we continue to build more, or the F-35, the Joint Strike
Fighter, which goes to the Marine Corps and the Navy and the Air Force.
Is this the weapons system we need to balance our entire capability of
manned aircraft?
I would ask my colleagues, since the F-22 was on the drawing boards
and moved into production, look at the advancement in unmanned aerial
vehicles. I say that as an old pilot. The unmanned aerial vehicles have
been performing a magnificent job both in Iraq and Afghanistan. They
have been a critical element sometimes on the battlefields. And this
President's budget understands that and gives extreme priority to that.
So as we go on, in light of these factors, Secretary Gates goes on to
say:

With the support of Air Force leadership, I concluded that
183--the program of record since 2005, plus four more added
in the FY 09 supplemental--was a sufficient number of F-22s
and recommended as such to the President.
The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable
for many of the reasons I described before. The most
substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program
means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To
assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential
threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries
have now or in the pipeline.

The fact is, in the view of the President of the United States, the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and most any objective observer of the
military scene, they believe the F-22 is important, we need to have
what we have, but it is now time to move on to the F-35, the Joint
Strike Fighter.
So this amendment really means, are we going to look at the real and
compelling needs we have to have in order to win the war in
Afghanistan, continue our success in Iraq, and put our funds into that
kind of equipment and weapons systems or are we going to continue?
Finally, I have great sympathy for the Senator from Georgia and other
Senators who have come to the floor. I understand the sincerity of
their views. I respect them. I would also point out, though, that to
argue we should build weapons systems in the name of jobs is not what
we should be about. What we should be about is procuring and building
the best weapons systems to ensure our national security and how we can
best equip the men and women who are in harm's way all around the world
today.
So I understand the economic impact, particularly in these hard
times. My sympathy goes out to the communities that are dependent on
the contracts for the F-22 aircraft. All I can say to them is we will
do everything we can to help you and your families and make the
adjustments, and there will be--we continue to increase spending on
defense. We hope that we will be able to provide you with the necessary
jobs and manufacturing that would be devoted to what we have
ascertained as our national defense weapons systems procurement
priorities, I say with sympathy to my colleagues who are deeply
concerned about the loss of jobs in these difficult economic times. But
this is not the way to provide jobs. Our obligation is to defend this
Nation.
So I think this amendment is overdue. I think it will be a
significant, a very significant amendment, as I said before, as to
whether we will get our priorities straight and listen to our esteemed
Secretary of Defense, our President, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and other military leaders in whose hands we entrust to make
the tough decisions. I understand the final decision is here in
Congress, but I also don't think we should dismiss the arguments that
have been made by I think one of the finest men to ever serve this
country, and that is Secretary of Defense Gates.
I yield the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Utah?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will be happy to yield 7 minutes to the Senator from
Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, during his July 16 address, the Secretary
of Defense, Robert Gates, said the military needed maximum versatility
to bring to bear in a wide range of armed conflicts. Last January, he
argued that ``our military must be prepared for a full spectrum of
operations, including the [insurgent] type of combat we are facing in
Iraq and Afghanistan as well as large-scale threats that we face from
places like North Korea and Iran.''
I could not agree more with Secretary Gates. However, just as our
Nation unwisely disregarded the hard-learned lessons of how to fight
counterinsurgency operations after Vietnam, the Defense Department
seems poised to make similar errors by limiting our capability to
defeat the air threat of today and tomorrow: the integrated air defense
system.
This advanced system is composed of extended-range Russian surface-
to-air missiles such as the S-300 and advanced fighters such as the Su-
30, which have already been sold in large numbers to China and India.
Together, these systems make penetrating hostile airspace extremely
difficult, if not deadly, for aircraft lacking the F-22's advanced
stealth technology and capability for sustained supersonic speeds. It
is these capabilities that enable the Raptor to have the unique
capability to conduct stealth operations at any time of day or night.
Secretary Gates argues for ceasing production of the F-22 after only
187

[[Page 18391]]

are built because we will not face what the Pentagon refers to as a
``near-peer adversary'' for the foreseeable future.
For the sake of our Nation, I hope he is right. However, I believe
this statement misses a critical point: advanced integrated air defense
systems are comparably inexpensive and readily affordable by nations
such as Iran, with its insistence on developing nuclear weapons.
History provides ample examples of the effective use of integrated
air defense systems by nations that lack the resources to be considered
a near-peer adversary of the U.S. As retired LTG Michael Dunn recently
noted, North Vietnam defended its territory during the Vietnam war with
what, at the time, was an advanced air defense system. This system,
comprised of surface-to-air missiles and fewer than 200 fighters, was
able to shoot down 2,448 American aircraft.
The 1973 War between Israel and Egypt is another example. The
Egyptians learning from their recent defeats built an integrated air
defense umbrella under which its forces were able to initially make
significant territorial gains, while the Israeli Air Force faced
serious losses. Only when the Egyptians advanced beyond the range of
their surface-to-air missiles' umbrella was the Israeli Air Force able
to inflict a significant blow.
A more contemporary example is the loss in the 1990s of an F-117
Nighthawk to the Serbians, who were not equipped with the latest air
defense system.
Despite such examples, some argue additional F-22s are not necessary
since stealthy jet-powered unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs, which are
still under development, will play an increasingly vital role in
destroying critical ground targets. This is true for threats on the
ground, but I am unaware of any plans to operationally deploy a UAV
that can dogfight existing or next-generation Russian and Chinese jet
fighters, which will be hunting these UAVs.
Our forces could be confronted with the next generation Russian and
Chinese fighters soon. There have been numerous media reports the
Russian Government is developing a new stealthy aircraft, presumably to
counter the F-22. This aircraft called PAK-FA, is being developed
jointly with the Indian Government. Additional media sources cite
China's development of a similar twin engine, stealth aircraft known as
the J-12.
Some argue that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can tackle those
threats and defeat this new generation of advanced aircraft. While the
F-35 is a very capable stealth aircraft, it was designed to complement
the F-22, not replace it. The fact is the F-35 is neither as capable a
fighter nor as stealthy as the F-22. For example, the F-35 does not
have, nor can be upgraded to use, the supercruise engines increasingly
needed in today's stealth operations.
Remember the F-22 is the NASCAR racer of this air-dominance team.
Fast and unseen, the Raptor will punch a hole in an enemy's defenses,
quickly dispatching any challenger in the air and striking at the most
important ground targets. The Joint Strike Fighter is the rugged SUV of
the team. Impressive, but not as maneuverable or capable of sustained
supersonic speeds, the F-35 will exploit the hole opened by the F-22
and attack additional targets and directly support our ground forces.
This is not to say the F-35 is not a highly capable stealthy aircraft.
But the F-35's role is to supplement the F-22, not substitute for it.
Only by utilizing the strengths of both aircraft do we ensure air
dominance for the next 40 years.
Furthermore, if the F-22 is such a boondoggle, why do our allies such
as Japan and Australia want to spend billions to purchase the aircraft?
Why does Australia, for instance, plan to purchase up to 100 F-35s and
large numbers of UAVs, and yet remains interested in the F-22? Perhaps
it is because Australia understands the Russians and the Chinese are
developing even more sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems and
stealth fighters, threats the F-22 is uniquely designed and equipped to
destroy.
Others point out the F-22 has not been deployed in support of our
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is true. However, there were
recent plans to deploy the F-22 to the Persian Gulf. But according to
the July 9, 2008, edition of the widely respected Defense News, the
Pentagon overruled those plans, citing concerns about ``strategic
dislocation.'' This means the F-22 is hardly a dinosaur. It is a weapon
that can change the balance of power in a region and deter our
adversaries.
In conclusion, I am reminded of a point author Michael Korda made in
his book about the Battle of Britain. He observed that even though the
two British prime ministers before Winston Churchill pursued a policy
of appeasement, they also committed their government to develop and
procure the three pieces of equipment: the Spitfire fighter, Hurricane
fighter and radar, which were to ensure that nation's survival during
the Battle of Britain.
I hope the Senate will profit from these lessons of history and vote
against the McCain-Levin amendment.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains for the proponents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I ask Senator Wyden, how much time does he need?
Mr. WYDEN. I believe 10 minutes would be plenty.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Wyden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise this morning to support the Levin-
McCain amendment. It seems to me that buying more F-22s at this point
would meet the very definition of government waste.
What you have is a situation where the Pentagon, which, suffice it to
say, has not exactly been shy over the years in terms of calling for
additional weapons, is on record as saying this is unnecessary.
Further, I have been out talking with members of the Guard at home and
trying to get their sense of what is needed in this dangerous time, and
they have never once mentioned something like this.
They talk, for example, about body armor. They talk about boots. They
don't talk about more F-22s. Suffice it to say, when the Congress is
now having a debate about trying to find additional money for health
care, for example, to go out and spend close to $2 billion to buy seven
more F-22 fighters the Air Force says it doesn't want defies common
sense.
My home State, for example, would love to hire back police and other
essential workers who have been laid off. Instead of building seven
planes, we could be restoring infrastructure and developing renewable
energy. Again, in my home State, we have had budget shortfalls. We have
seen reductions in essential services, law enforcement being one. The
debate is not about necessary steps to ensuring a strong national
defense. The question is about whether the U.S. Congress wants to spend
close to $2 billion to pay for more fighter jets the Air Force does not
want.
It is also important to remember that the F-22 is not being purchased
for wars the United States is currently fighting. Certainly, the
Taliban and Iraqi insurgents do not have an Air Force. The F-22 is
being purchased to fight in possible future conflicts with other
countries that may have an air force. While I strongly believe the
Pentagon ought to be able to prepare for such possibilities, it is the
Pentagon that is telling us we don't need these additional F-22s.
It is also important to note that the Pentagon has purchased 187 F-
22s. There is not a debate about whether the United States ought to
have fighters in our arsenal. The question is whether the Air Force
needs 194 of them instead of 187. We have a very good Secretary of
Defense, Robert Gates. The Secretary has said that 187 is sufficient to
combat current and future threats. He is the one who said that more are
not needed. He is the one who said:

We must break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of
cost, complexity, and

[[Page 18392]]

delay to systems that are so expensive and so elaborate that
only a small number can be built, and that are then usable
only in a narrow range of low probability scenarios.

Secretary Gates has hit the nail about as perfectly on the head as
one can. He and our country want the strongest defense possible. But
there are ways to make better use of that $1.75 billion than on seven
more F-22s.
I serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I know there
are threats to our forces every single day. I see the Senator from
Georgia who serves on the Intelligence Committee. He believes strongly
about this as well. We need to make sure we are protecting our troops
in harm's way, but we have a variety of choices in order to secure the
protection our troops have been in need of. I intend to work with
Chairman Levin, Secretary Gates, the distinguished Senator from
Arizona, and the President to ensure we replace the current F-15 with
more capable and safer fighters.
Last month, I visited with some of the 3,000 members of the Oregon
National Guard's 41st brigade combat team, as they trained for their
current deployment to Iraq. Not a one of the soldiers told me that
their big concern was whether the Air Force would have 194 F-22s
instead of 187. They talked to me instead about the best vehicles, the
best medical care if they are injured, about the best body armor. Not
one of them mentioned the F-22.
I am not voting against the F-22. I am voting for the soldier, the
taxpayer. They both deserve our government's greatest protection at
this critical time in our history.
I urge colleagues to support the Levin-McCain amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to address the F-22 program.
For the past week as the debate has swirled around on this program I
have not spoken on the subject. My colleagues know that I have strongly
supported the F-22 program over the past two decades. Why? Because it
is without question the world's most advanced fighter aircraft. It's
capabilities far outstrip anything else in the world. There simply is
no match.
When the Advanced Tactical Fighter Program began more than 20 years
ago, no one could foresee what the world would look like in 2009. We
planned to build 750 F-22s in order to match the Soviet Union's assumed
far greater number of advanced fighters. The F-22 was designed with a
goal of defeating 10 Soviet fighters apiece. The strategy was that
using a combination of stealth and an advanced radar the F-22 would be
able to attack Soviet fighters long before the adversary knew they were
there.
I am pleased to note that 20 years later as we train with the F-22
our Air Force pilots report that is exactly what it can do. Time after
time as we exercise with the F-22, the results are nearly the same. The
F-22 defeats all adversaries nearly with the same predictions as the
designers hoped it would do.
What has changed, however, is that the Soviet Union no longer poses
the threat that was assumed by the Defense Department in the 1980s. So
then, critics say, why do we need to continue to buy more? We will soon
have 187 aircraft that should be sufficient.
They note that the F-22 hasn't been used in Afghanistan. While that
is considered a clear argument that it isn't needed, it is laughable.
As far as I know al-Qaida and the Taliban don't have an air force. The
F-22 is designed to defeat conventional military forces. It is
designed, for example, to counter a conventional attack by an adversary
against one of its neighbors. Were the Chinese to attack Taiwan, the F-
22 would provide an incredible counter to the Chinese. The same would
be true if a resurgent Russia were to try to reclaim countries in the
Baltics. Unless we truly believe that we will never face another nation
state in a conventional conflict then the F-22 is indeed necessary.
At 187 aircraft, the F-22 provides a very credible deterrent to those
nations. Is it sufficient? Perhaps. Will the Joint Strike Fighter
replace it, not a chance. The Joint Strike Fighter, we expect, will be
a terrific aircraft, but it is designed primarily to attack ground
targets. In a battle against the F-22, it would likely lose each
engagement. With better trained pilots and tactics, the Joint Strike
Fighter could probably give the F-22 a run for its money, but it was
never designed to replace the F-22 and should not be viewed as such.
To me what is maddening about this debate is the sense that the
decision is so clear cut that the F-22 program should be killed that it
is only parochial politics that could keep it alive. That is pure
hogwash.
The Nation has invested more than $65 billion to develop and buy 187
aircraft. If we choose to buy more F-22s we will do so at a very
reasonable price--about $150 million. While that is not cheap by any
stretch of the imagination, it is far cheaper than what we paid to
initiate the program. And, if we kill the program and decide that we
need to restart it in a few years, it is far cheaper than we would have
to pay to resuscitate production.
This is not a boondoggle. We don't have critics saying the program is
flawed and should be killed. Everyone agrees it is a great aircraft.
While some of my colleagues obviously support the program because it
means jobs in their States, others like myself who have no F-22 jobs in
their States support the program because of its capabilities and their
concern for the future. Why then has it become an issue over which to
veto a bill? Why are the stakes so high with this program?
I have the greatest respect for the President and the current
Secretary of Defense. I have supported both in almost every initiative
they have advocated. But I see in this case a pattern that I have
witnessed over and over again.
Time after time our new leaders, both civilian and military, look at
a program and see all the reasons why it isn't the right one. For
example, in the early days of the Clinton administration the C-17
program was nearly terminated because the production of the aircraft
wasn't performing up to expectations. I recall 2 years prior to that
the Appropriations Committee recommended a pause in funding for the C-
17, not because we had lost confidence in the program. We still
believed in the requirement for the aircraft, but the program wasn't
performing. Up to that point, we had appropriated funds for 16 C-17s in
total, but not a single one had been delivered, and there were very few
coming together on the factory floor in Long Beach. We weren't
recommending cancellation, but it served notice that attention was
needed. However, the attention that the program received was mostly
from critics who sought its termination.
When the Clinton administration came into office many of the new
officials were convinced that the C-17 should be terminated. In that
instance the Pentagon mandated a study to determine whether the C-17
was still required. Luckily the conclusion was that yes the plane was
still needed and those who were calling for its cancellation, including
some in Congress, would not get their way.
It was only a few years earlier that Secretary Cheney determined that
the V-22 should be terminated. He was justifiably concerned that the
price was increasing and that the program was taking longer than
planned. It took the concerted effort of the Congress to stand up and
say that we would not allow the program to be terminated. Certainly
there were those in the Pentagon who agreed with the Secretary, but the
Marines did not.
I am told that a few years prior to that my good friend Senator
Rudman weighed in with Chairman Stevens to overrule the Air Force who
wanted to kill the F-117 after the production of only one squadron of
aircraft. I should point out that the F-117 was not built in New
Hampshire. There might have been some modest amount of work associated
with the plane in his state, but the reason that Senator Rudman
insisted that we keep buying the F-117 was because of its unique
capabilities not for any parochial reason.
My colleagues all know the history of the B-2 program. It was started
as a

[[Page 18393]]

classified program in 1981. The Air Force was going to build 132
bombers. We expected it to cost between $20 and $25 billion in total.
The contractor built a huge state of the art factory out in the high
desert of California to handle the production of the aircraft. Because
it was highly classified every precaution had to be taken to protect
national security all of which dramatically increased the cost to
produce the aircraft.
Clearly the contractor and Air Force were overly optimistic on the
cost and schedule of the program. Within 5 years it was clear that the
program was not going to be completed within $25 billion. As
development delays occurred, costs continued to escalate. The Air Force
was unwilling to devote more resources to the program so in a series of
moves it consistently delayed production of the aircraft and
transferred dollars appropriated to build the aircraft to be used
instead to cover higher development costs. By the time I became
chairman, it was clear that the program would exceed its budget, but it
was also clear that if it were successful it would provide an unmatched
capability to this Nation. As costs mounted, the Defense Department
determined that it would not be able to purchase all 132 aircraft.
First production was cut to 75 and eventually it dropped to 20. In 1996
as the program was being killed, the contractor offered to produce
three per year for several years at a price of about $600 million per
copy. However, by that time support for the program had eroded so that
neither the Pentagon nor the Congress would take up the offer. Instead,
by only buying a total of 21 aircraft, we invested over $2 billion per
plane making it the most costly aircraft in history.
This situation isn't unique to aircraft programs. In the case of
shipbuilding, I remember vividly Secretary Cheney's decision to cancel
the Seawolf submarine. As a result of that decision, the three Seawolf-
class submarines that were eventually built were very expensive.
Because we only bought three, the average cost of each submarine was
more than $4 billion. Had we built the 29 originally planned, I can
only speculate about the cost, but it would certainly have been less
than the price we are now paying for its replacement. What is even more
galling is that during that time we were still building the capable
SSN-688 Los Angeles class submarines and only paying about $800 million
apiece for them. Instead of reinvigorating that program, we cancelled
the Seawolf program and proceeded with the New Attack submarine, now
called the Virginia class, in order to move to a cheaper submarine.
Regrettably, I have to report that the cost of the Virginia class
submarine is so high that we have only been able to afford to purchase
one per year. When I became chairman we were buying four Los Angeles
class submarines a year and paying only 1/3 the cost of the Virginia
class. Is the Virginia a better submarine? Surely it is. The
technological advances that the Nation has developed between the time
the Los Angeles subs were designed and this decade have allowed for
substantial improvements. Is it better than the Seawolf? That is
debatable.
The pattern I have watched during my tenure is a mix of four things.
First, programs are cancelled before or as they reach maturity. Why?
Sometimes because new leadership wants to go in a new direction more
often, and important costs increase and schedules are delayed which
erode the support for the programs. Sometimes programs are cancelled
because we believe the promised replacement will be more capable or
cheaper. And sometimes we argue times have changed and we don't need
them. In a few cases it is clear that the program wasn't performing as
expected and should be terminated.
For the F-22 some will argue it is too expensive. That was the
argument against the V-22 program. Some say we simply don't need any
more. That was the argument used to kill the B-2. Would we like to have
more B-2s in the inventory today? I, for one, surely would.
Others will say the threat doesn't warrant buying more F-22s. This is
where I have my gravest concern. Some experts will tell you that we
know that potential adversaries are working on fifth generation
fighters. If in 5 years the Chinese unveil a new fifth generation
fighter and begin to produce it in numbers will we regret the decision
to kill the F-22, I believe we would.
I am told that no one is likely to be able to develop and build an F-
22 equivalent aircraft for a generation. The skill and funding required
to do so exceeds any foreign nation's ability. But in my view, they
might not be able to design an F-22 themselves, but that doesn't mean
they can't steal the plans.
We were told that the North Koreans were years away from a long range
missile, then were surprised when they unveiled the Taepo dong. We were
surprised when Pakistan conducted a nuclear test. We were shocked when
the Soviet Union collapsed and most Americans were shocked when they
learned about al-Qaida after 9/11. if there is one thing that shouldn't
surprise us is that we cannot foretell the future.
So as my colleagues deliberate on the F-22 program I come down on the
side of caution. I believe it makes more sense at this time to continue
to produce the program to hedge our bets against the future.
To my knowledge there isn't a single worker in the State of Hawaii
whose job is dependent on continuing production of the F-22, but I
believe the program merits continued production.
I believe it is unfortunate that the debate on this matter has taken
on an overblown proportion. One can make the case that 187 could be
sufficient. Our Secretary and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs agree that
is the case. But just like the Marines argued for continuing to produce
the V-22, the leaders of our Air National Guard and those in charge of
flying the aircraft argue that we need more--even though the Defense
Secretary said it should be cancelled.
When some say well, the Air Force leaders say they have enough, I
will remind my colleagues that the Air Force said the same thing about
the F-117 after we only produced one squadron.
When some say we should kill this and move on to the Joint Strike
Fighter, I remember the Seawolf debate. We killed that submarine to
build a cheaper alternative. Will we do the same thing here and be
disappointed in the cost of the so-called alternative?
On February 2, 1989, I was selected as the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Defense of the Appropriations Committee. For the past
20 years, it has been my distinct honor to serve either as the chairman
or the ranking member of this subcommittee. As my colleagues all know,
the defense subcommittee has the largest budget of any of our
appropriations subcommittees, and to many of us it is probably the most
important of our subcommittees. It has required a great deal of my time
and attention over the past 20 years. For me it has been a labor of
love. I have the greatest respect for the men and women of this Nation
who are willing to serve and who guarantee constitutional freedoms for
the rest of us. It has been my priority to support their cause during
this period.
As I consider the F-22, I do so with the past twenty years as my
guide. In my opinion what I have learned has taught me to be cautious
as we kill programs. Therefore today I will cast my vote to continue
the F-22 program.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am going to continue to support
production of the F-22 Raptor because we are still hearing strong
indications from top military leaders that we need additional aircraft.
Last month, General Corley, the Commander of the Air Force Air Combat
Command, wrote that ending procurement of the F-22 would put our
ability to execute our nation's military strategy at ``high risk'' over
the ``near to mid-term.''
In addition, LTG Harry M. Wyatt III, the Director of the Air National
Guard, has stated that these aircraft are particularly important for
homeland defense missions, including addressing potential threats from
cruise missiles.
GEN Merrill McPeak, retired, the former Chief of Staff of the Air
Force, also recently added that ending F-22 procurement ``is a real
mistake,'' and that ``we certainly need some figure well above 200.''

[[Page 18394]]

I am also not prepared to vote to end production because I have yet
to see a conclusive study indicating that 187 F-22s are enough. In
fact, as late as May 19 of this year, GEN Norman A. Schwartz, the Chief
of Staff of the Air Force, told the House Armed Services Committee that
``243 F-22s is the right number. . . .''
The United States has made a significant investment in the F-22
program. Before terminating it, we must see in unequivocal terms how
the defense planning process has determined that requirements and
threats have changed to stop production at 187.
The next Quadrennial Defense Review--QDR--which outlines our national
security strategy--is scheduled for submission by the Department of
Defense in early 2010. This important document shapes how our military
will respond to threats to our national security. The timing of today's
vote ignores this review.
I will feel more confident making a decision on this important
program after reading the QDR, as it will shape our national security
strategy for years to come. As GEN James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during his confirmation hearing for
his second 2-year term, ``The military requirement right now [for the
F-22A] is associated with the strategy that we are laying out in the
Quadrennial Defense Review.''
While I realize that there are compelling arguments on both sides of
this issue, I do not believe we have enough information at this time to
shut down the F-22 line and terminate the program at 187 aircraft.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CHAMBLISS. How much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia has 11 minutes; the
Senator from Michigan has 15 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am not sure how many other Senators
want to speak or whether the opponents have speakers remaining on their
side.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, Senator Inhofe indicated a desire to
speak. He is tied up in an EPW Committee hearing. He may be able to get
here.
Mr. LEVIN. We would like to be at the end of the line, Senator McCain
and I.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I will be happy to make some comments. Then Senator
McCain and Senator Dodd and the Senator from Michigan could close it
out. If Senator Inhofe comes in, we will give him a couple of minutes.
Madam President, would the Chair notify me when I have used 5
minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I want to make a couple of quick
comments relative to some of what has been said. First, with regard to
Senator Wyden's comments concerning the National Guard, sure, all of us
want to make sure we equip our Guard, our Reserve, as well as our
active-duty force with all the needs they have. I would cite him to the
letter of General Wyatt, who is the head of the Air Force Guard.
General Wyatt says the F-22 is uniquely qualified to fill the needs the
Guard has for its national security mission. To even slightly indicate
that the Guard has issues with this program is simply not correct. The
Guard is on record as being a strong supporter of this program.
I have a letter from retired GEN David Bockel, retired from the
United States Army. He now is the acting executive director of the
Reserve Officers Association. Let me quote part of this:

War plans of the United States are predicated upon
technological air dominance to provide asymmetric advantage
for victory. Military experts believe the current cap of 187
F-22s is an inadequate number of aircraft to ensure no future
threat can impede the U.S. air dominance. The minimum number
of F-22s required to ensure a strong defense is 250.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter of retired General Bockel be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Reserve Officers Association,

Washington, DC, July 20, 2009.
Hon. Saxby Chambliss,
Russell Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Chambliss: The Reserve Officers Association,
representing 65,000 Reserve Component members, supports
additional procurement of the F-22 Raptor Aircraft. ROA urges
Congress to authorize and appropriate funds for continued
production of the F-22 Raptor.
War plans of the United States are predicated upon
technological air dominance to provide asymmetric advantage
for victory. Military experts believe the current cap of 187
F-22 is an inadequate number of aircraft to ensure no future
threat can impede U.S. air dominance. The minimum number of
F-22s required to ensure a strong defense is 250.
Potential adversary nations are committed to producing
their own fifth-generation aircraft in the immediate future.
Not providing further funding for this crucial weapons system
places at risk our nation's ability to meet known and near
future threats. The United States can ill afford a fighter
gap or to rely on legacy aircraft.
Thank you for your efforts on this key issue, and other
support to the military that you have shown in the past.
Please feel free to have your staff call ROA's legislative
director, Marshall Hanson, with any question or issue you
would like to discuss.
Sincerely,

David R. Bockel,

Major General, USA (Retired),
Acting Executive Director.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I also have quoted earlier the comments by an active-
duty general, a guy I consider a great American hero, not just because
he falls in that category of wearing the uniform of the United States,
but he is standing up to the personnel at the Pentagon. He is saying:
You guys are wrong.
For an active-duty general to do that takes significant courage. This
is a guy I want in the foxhole with me. That is General Corley,
commander of Air Combat Command, who very clearly says in a letter that
we have previously entered into the Record that a fleet of 187 F-22s
puts execution of our national military strategy at high risk in the
near to midterm and that the minimum number of F-22s we need, in his
opinion, is 381.
I want to also talk for a minute about Senator McCain's comments on
the cost. This is an expensive weapons system, but it is also the most
sophisticated weapons system ever designed by mankind. Most
importantly, it is doing its job. It is doing its job in a very
professional way. Instead of costing the $350 million Senator McCain
stated in his earlier statements, because of a multiyear procurement
contract we entered into between the Pentagon and the Air Force, as
approved by this body--and I know Senator McCain objected to that and I
understand that--but by a vote of 70 to 28, that multiyear contract was
approved by this body as well as by the House. As a result, instead of
paying the $350 million per copy he alluded to, we are today, under
that multiyear contract, paying $140 million a copy. That is in
comparison to the $200 million a copy that will be paid for every
single F-35 we are buying in this budget. The figure for 200 F-35s in
this budget exceeds $6 billion.
There are a number of people who are watching this debate out there
today. Certainly those folks at the Pentagon are anxiously awaiting the
results of the vote. The White House is anxiously awaiting the results
of the vote. The Chinese are anxiously awaiting this vote. Let me tell
colleagues why. I want to quote from an article of July 19 from a
gentleman named Robert D. Fisher, Jr., who is a senior fellow with the
International Assessment and Strategy Center. He writes:

Though the Chinese government says next to nothing and the
U.S. Government says very little, what is known about China's
fifth-generation fighter program is disturbing. Both of
China's fighter manufacturers, the Shenyang and Chengdu
Aircraft corporations, are competing to build a heavy fifth-
generation fighter, and there are serious indicators China
may be working on a medium-weight fifth-generation fighter
similar to the F-35. China can be expected to put a fifth-
generation fighter on its future aircraft carriers, and it
can be expected to build more than 187.

I ask unanimous consent that that article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 18395]]

[From the Washington Times, July 19, 2009]

F-22 Fighters for Japan

(By Richard D. Fisher Jr.)

If Japan's long-standing effort to acquire the Lockheed-
Martin F-22 Raptor fifth-generation superfighter falls victim
to Washington power politics, the United States may
inadvertently encourage an Asian arms race over which it may
have little control.
It is fortunate for the United States that in what may be
the last year a deal is possible, Senate Appropriations
Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye and his supporters have
decided to lead an effort to reverse a 1998 law barring
foreign sale of the F-22.
Through Mr. Inouye's efforts Japan now knows a slightly
degraded export model of the Raptor may take five years to
develop and cost about $290 million a plane for about 40,
compared to the estimated $150 million the U.S. Air Force
pays.
Japan's long-standing quest to obtain the F-22, however,
may be shot down amid the intense political struggle over the
F-22s very future. President Obama and Defense Secretary
Robert M. Gates have made termination of F-22 production at
187 planes a symbolic goal of their effort to cut defense
spending and reorient U.S. military strategy. This has been
challenged recently by the House Armed Services Committee,
which approved the production of 12 more Raptors, and a
Senate committee that approved production of seven more.
However, the administration immediately threatened a veto,
and the F-22's opponents are working hard to ensure that
production ends in 2011 as currently planned.
After 2011, the F-22's costs will grow significantly, so
Japan and its U.S. supporters have little time to nail down a
deal. However, some U.S. officials have long doubted that
Japan can afford to pay for the F-22, which is why the George
W. Bush and Obama administrations have not seriously promoted
the F-22 for Japan. Mr. Gates reportedly favors selling Tokyo
the smaller, somewhat less capable and less expensive
Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lighting II.
While Japan may also purchase the F-35, there are two
important reasons Washington should fully support Japan's
goal to acquire the F-22. First, the F-22 will be the only
combat aircraft capable of countering China's expected fifth-
generation fighters. Second, selling Japan the Raptor may
become a critical nonnuclear means for Washington to help
Japan deter a China on its way to becoming a military
superpower by the 2020s. If Washington cannot provide
decisive nonnuclear means to deter China, Japan may more
quickly consider decisive deterrents such as missiles and
nuclear weapons.
Though the Chinese government says next to nothing and the
U.S. government says very little, what is known about China's
fifth-generation fighter program is disturbing. Both of
China's fighter manufacturers, the Shenyang and Chengdu
Aircraft corporations, are competing to build a heavy fifth-
generation fighter, and there are serious indicators China
may be working on a medium-weight fifth-generation fighter
similar to the F-35. China can be expected to put a fifth-
generation fighter on its future aircraft carriers, and it
can be expected to build more than 187.
Furthermore, China's development of anti-access
capabilities such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, its
buildup of nuclear-missile and anti-missile capabilities and
space-warfare weapons will increasingly undermine U.S.
strategic guarantees for Japan. China's development of long-
range anti-air and surface-to-air missiles also threatens the
electronic support aircraft critical to the ``networked''
U.S. air-warfare paradigm, meaning that jet fighters could
quickly lose force-multiplying radar aircraft, tankers and
communication satellites. As such, Japan is correct to prefer
the F-22, which reportedly can fly 300 to 400 mph faster and
two miles higher than the F-35--an aircraft optimized for
attack, not air-superiority missions.
If Japan is serious about the F-22 and its military
security, it will have to pay for both. But if Washington is
serious about sustaining a strategic alliance, it should sell
the Raptor to Japan and be prepared to do more as China's
military looms larger.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. There is another group watching very anxiously out
there. It is a group of men and women who wear the uniform of the U.S.
Air Force. They are lieutenants, captains, and majors. They are
watching this anxiously because they are saying to themselves: I signed
up to be a part of a U.S. Air Force that believes in putting men and
women in cockpits, men and women who are going to carry the fight to
the enemy. What am I hearing from Members of Congress? What am I
hearing from the leadership at the Pentagon? That we are going to move
away from the most advanced fighter in the world today and move to a
smaller fighter? That we are going to move away from fighters maybe
even altogether by going to UAVs? Is this the Air Force I signed up
for?
I can tell my colleagues why they are anxiously awaiting the outcome.
They have talked to me time and time again about the fact that they are
concerned about their future in the U.S. Air Force. The worst thing we
can do is to discourage those brave men and women who want to make a
career of the Air Force and want to be wearing the two, three, and four
stars one of these days. I assure my colleagues those lieutenants and
those captains and those majors are watching what this body does from a
policy standpoint today. They know where their leadership at the
Pentagon is coming from. They don't like what they are hearing. They
are now looking to Congress to fulfill the role that John Hamre, the
director of CSIS, has said time and time again, and that is to
objectively review the budget the Pentagon sends to the hill. We are in
the process of doing that and exercising the type of oversight we
should exercise.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I yield 2 minutes to Senator Inhofe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I know almost everything that can be
said has been said. Having served on the Armed Services Committee for
quite some time and having watched this, what is kind of worrisome to
me is that when we started out the F-22 program, the fifth generation
fighter program, at that time they were talking about 750. Then the
numbers started coming down and approached, I guess, 243. The Air Force
officials have repeatedly stated that no fewer than that would be
sufficient with a moderate level of risk.
My concern has been the same concern I have when we are talking about
ground capability, when we see countries such as China and Russia
passing us up in areas. I will not bring up the NLOS cannon right now.
But there are many places where our prospective enemies have better
equipment than we do. We do know China has their J-12s; and Russia, I
believe they are calling theirs the T-50s. We do know those are fifth-
generation fighters. It is very disturbing to me that we would consider
stopping at this point when this is not going to be adequate to get us
out of the medium-risk category.
So I certainly support the effort to maintain those seven. Quite
frankly, when Senator Chambliss offered the amendment to expand it by
seven, I was thinking we should really be shooting for more, and I
think he agreed with that. However, apparently with the exports out
there and with the additional seven that were put in, in the committee,
that would be enough to keep the line open. So I strongly support the
effort to keep those numbers where they are.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. How much time do the opponents have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, if the Senator from Arizona would go, and then
Senator Dodd, and then myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Forty-five seconds.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, we would be glad to yield a couple more
minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the
Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. McCAIN. Three, four. I ask the Senator, do you want to go ahead
now?
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I will wait a couple of minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will be fairly brief. This argument
has been made, and we pretty well covered most of the issue. I would
remind my colleagues that all the things we do are a matter of choice
because we do not

[[Page 18396]]

have unlimited amounts of funding, obviously, and if you spend money on
one project, then obviously you may have to spend less on another. That
is the case of the F-35, if we do not eliminate this $1.75 billion.
But most importantly, I want to point out again, this amendment is
more than just about a weapons system. This amendment is about whether
we will stop doing business as usual; that is, continuing to fund
weapons systems that are no longer needed and unnecessary. We are not
saying the F-22 is not a good aircraft. We are saying it is time to end
the production of the F-22.
The President of the United States has threatened to veto this entire
bill. That is not good for the men and women in the military to have to
go through this whole process over again. The Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and, very
importantly, the Secretary of Defense, who has served now under two
Presidents and has gained the respect and appreciation of all of us for
his service--Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Secretary of
Defense Gates' speech last July 16 to the Economic Club of Chicago be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs).

Economic Club of Chicago

(As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, Chicago, IL,
Thursday, July 16, 2009)

Thank you, Secretary Daley, for that kind introduction.
It's an honor to be at the Economic Club of Chicago. I
certainly appreciate the special arrangements you made to
have me here this afternoon.
I thank all the distinguished citizens of this great city
who came here today. I am mindful I am speaking in the
adopted hometown of my boss. President Obama sends his
greetings, as do Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and the rest
of the Chicago crew. They are no doubt discovering that
Washington is the true ``Windy City.''
The issue that brings me here today is central to the
security of all Americans: the future of the United States
military: How it should be organized, equipped--and funded--
in the years ahead, to win the wars we are in while being
prepared for threats on or beyond the horizon. Earlier this
year, I recommended to President Obama--and he
enthusiastically agreed--that we needed to fundamentally
reshape the priorities of America's defense establishment and
reform the way the Pentagon does business--in particular, the
weapons we buy, and how we buy them. Above all, to prepare to
wage future wars, rather than continuing the habit of
rearming for previous ones.
I am here on relatively short notice to speak publicly
about these matters because Congress is, as we speak,
debating the president's defense budget request for the next
fiscal year, a budget request that implements many needed
reforms and changes. Most of the proposals--especially those
that increase support for the troops, their families, and the
war effort--have been widely embraced. However, some of the
crucial reforms that deal with major weapons programs have
met with a less than enthusiastic reaction in the Congress,
among defense contractors, and within some quarters of the
Pentagon itself. And so I thought it appropriate to address
some of these controversial issues here--in a place that is,
appropriately enough not only the adopted home of our
Commander-in-Chief, but also a symbol of America's industrial
base and economic power.
First, some context on how we got to this point. President
Obama's budget proposal is, I believe, the nation's first
truly 21st century defense budget. It explicitly recognizes
that over the last two decades the nature of conflict has
fundamentally changed--and that much of America's defense
establishment has yet to fully adapt to the security
realities of the post-Cold War era and this complex and
dangerous new century.
During the 1990s, the United States celebrated the demise
of the Soviet Union and the so-called ``end of history'' by
making deep cuts in the funding for, and above all, the size
of the U.S. military, including a 40 percent drop in the size
of the Active Army. This took place even as a post-Cold War
world grew less stable, less predictable, and more turbulent.
The U.S. military, with some advances in areas such as
precision weaponry, essentially became a smaller version of
the force that held off the Soviets in Germany for decades
and expelled Iraq from Kuwait in 1991. There was little
appetite for, or interest in, preparing for what we call
``irregular warfare''--campaigns against insurgents,
terrorists, militias, and other non-state groups. This was
the bipartisan reality both in the White House and in
Congress.
Of course, after September 11th, some things did change.
The base defense budget--not counting spending for the wars--
increased by some 70 percent over the next eight years.
During this period there were important changes in the way
U.S. forces were organized, based and deployed, and
investments were made in new technologies such as unmanned
aerial vehicles. However, when all was said and done, the way
the Pentagon selected, evaluated, developed, and paid for
major new weapons systems and equipment did not fundamentally
change--even after September 11th.
Indeed, the kinds of equipment, programs, and capabilities
needed to protect our troops and defeat the insurgencies in
Iraq and Afghanistan were not the highest priority of much of
the Defense Department, even after several years of war.
I learned about this lack of bureaucratic priority for the
wars we are in the hard way--during my first few months on
the job as the Iraq surge was getting underway. The
challenges I faced in getting what our troops needed in the
field stood in stark contrast to the support provided
conventional modernization programs--weapons designed to
fight other modern armies, navies, and air forces--that had
been in the pipeline for many years and had acquired a loyal
and enthusiastic following in the Pentagon, in the Congress,
and in industry. The most pressing needs of today's
warfighter--on the battlefield, in the hospital, or at home--
simply lacked place and power at the table when priorities
were being set and long-term budget decisions were being
made.
So the most important shift in President Obama's first
defense budget was to increase and institutionalize funding
for programs that directly support those fighting America's
wars and their families. Those initiatives included more
helicopter support, air lift, armored vehicles, personnel
protection equipment, and intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance assets for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition, we also increased funding for programs that
provide long-term support to military families and treatment
for the signature wounds of this conflict--such as traumatic
brain injury and post traumatic stress.
But, while the world of terrorists and other violent
extremists--of insurgents and IEDs--is with us for the long
haul, we also recognize that another world has emerged.
Growing numbers of countries and groups are employing the
latest and increasingly accessible technologies to put the
United States at risk in disruptive and unpredictable ways.
Other large nations--known in Pentagon lingo as ``near-
peers''--are modernizing their militaries in ways that could,
over time, pose a challenge to the United States. In some
cases, their programs take the form of traditional weapons
systems such as more advanced fighter aircraft, missiles, and
submarines.
But other nations have learned from the experience of
Saddam Hussein's military in the first and second Gulf wars--
that it is ill-advised, if not suicidal, to fight a
conventional war head-to-head against the United States:
fighter-to-fighter, ship-to-ship, tank-to-tank. They also
learned from a bankrupted Soviet Union not to try to outspend
us or match our overall capabilities. Instead, they are
developing asymmetric means that take advantage of new
technologies--and our vulnerabilities--to disrupt our lines
of communication and our freedom of movement, to deny us
access, and to narrow our military options and strategic
choices.
At the same time, insurgents or militias are acquiring or
seeking precision weapons, sophisticated communications,
cyber capabilities, and even weapons of mass destruction. The
Lebanese extremist group Hezbollah currently has more rockets
and high-end munitions--many quite sophisticated and
accurate--than all but a handful of countries.
In sum, the security challenges we now face, and will in
the future, have changed, and our thinking must likewise
change. The old paradigm of looking at potential conflict as
either regular or irregular war, conventional or
unconventional, high end or low--is no longer relevant. And
as a result, the Defense Department needs to think about and
prepare for war in a profoundly different way than what we
have been accustomed to throughout the better part of the
last century.
What is needed is a portfolio of military capabilities with
maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of
conflict. As a result, we must change the way we think and
the way we plan--and fundamentally reform--the way the
Pentagon does business and buys weapons. It simply will not
do to base our strategy solely on continuing to design and
buy--as we have for the last 60 years--only the most
technologically advanced versions of weapons to keep up with
or stay ahead of another superpower adversary--especially one
that imploded nearly a generation ago.
To get there we must break the old habit of adding layer
upon layer of cost, complexity, and delay to systems that are
so expensive and so elaborate that only a small

[[Page 18397]]

number can be built, and that are then usable only in a
narrow range of low-probability scenarios.
We must also get control of what is called ``requirements
creep''--where more features and capabilities are added to a
given piece of equipment, often to the point of absurdity.
The most flamboyant example of this phenomenon is the new
presidential helicopter-- what President Obama referred to as
defense procurement ``run amok.'' Once the analysis and
requirements were done, we ended up with a helicopter that
cost nearly half a billion dollars each and enabled the
president to, among other things, cook dinner while in flight
under nuclear attack.
We also had to take a hard look at a number of weapons
programs that were grotesquely over budget, were having major
performance problems, were reliant on unproven technology, or
were becoming increasingly detached from real world
scenarios--as if September 11th and the wars that followed
had never happened.
Those of you with experience in the technology or
manufacturing sectors have at some point probably faced some
combination of these challenges in your own businesses. But
in the defense arena, we faced an additional, usually
insurmountable obstacle to bring rationality to budget and
acquisition decisions. Major weapons programs, irrespective
of their problems or performance, have a habit of continuing
long after they are wanted or needed, recalling Ronald
Reagan's old joke that a government program represents the
closest thing we'll ever see to eternal life on this earth.
First, there is the Congress, which is understandably
concerned, especially in these tough economic times, about
protecting jobs in certain states and congressional
districts. There is the defense and aerospace industry, which
has an obvious financial stake in the survival and growth of
these programs.
And there is the institutional military itself--within the
Pentagon, and as expressed through an influential network of
retired generals and admirals, some of whom are paid
consultants to the defense industry, and some who often are
quoted as experts in the news media.
As a result, many past attempts by my predecessors to end
failing or unnecessary programs went by the wayside.
Nonetheless I determined in a triumph of hope over
experience, and the president agreed, that given the urgency
of the wars we are in, the daunting global security
environment we will inhabit for decades to come, and our
country's economic problems, we simply cannot afford to move
ahead with business as usual.
To this end, the president's budget request cut, curtailed,
or ended a number of conventional modernization programs--
satellites, ground vehicles, helicopters, fighters--that were
either performing poorly or in excess to real-world needs.
Conversely, future-oriented programs where the U.S. was
relatively underinvested were accelerated or received more
funding.
For example, we must sustain and continually improve our
specialized strategic deterrent to ensure that our--and our
allies'--security is always protected against nuclear-armed
adversaries. In an initiative little noticed, the President's
program includes money to begin a new generation of ballistic
missile submarines and nearly $700 million in additional
funds to secure and assure America's nuclear deterrent.
Some of our proposed reforms are meeting real resistance.
They are called risky. Or not meeting a certain military
requirement. Or lacking in study and analysis. Those three
words--requirements, risk, and, analysis--are commonly
invoked in defense matters. If applied correctly, they help
us make sound decisions. I've found, however, that more often
they have become the holy trinity of the status quo or
business as usual.
In truth, preparing for conflict in the 21st century means
investing in truly new concepts and new technologies. It
means taking into account all the assets and capabilities we
can bring to the fight. It means measuring those capabilities
against the real threats posed by real world adversaries with
real limitations, not threats conjured up from enemies with
unlimited time, unlimited resources, and unlimited
technological acumen.
Air superiority and missile defense--two areas where the
budget has attracted the most criticism--provide case
studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22
fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future
potential conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the
right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other
weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to U.S.
air supremacy? For example, we now have unmanned aerial
vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence,
reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as deliver
precision-guided bombs and missiles. The president's budget
request would buy 48 of the most advanced UAVs--aircraft that
have a greater range than some of our manned fighters, in
addition to the ability to loiter for hours over a target.
And we will buy many more in the future.
We also took into consideration the capabilities of the
newest manned combat aircraft program, the stealth F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter. The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-
22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior
in a number of areas--most importantly, air-to-ground
missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses.
It is a versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of
the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the
advantages produced by economies of scale--some 500 will be
bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the
life of the program. And we already have eight foreign
development partners. It has had development problems to be
sure, as has every advanced military aircraft ever fielded.
But if properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of
America's tactical aviation fleet for decades to come if--and
it is a big if--money is not drained away to spend on other
aircraft that our military leadership considers of lower
priority or excess to our needs.
Having said that, the F-22 is clearly a capability we do
need--a niche, silver-bullet solution for one or two
potential scenarios--specifically the defeat of a highly
advanced enemy fighter fleet. The F-22, to be blunt, does not
make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict.
Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its
use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These
range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise
missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using
F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are
teenagers with AK-47s--a job we already know is better done
at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of
how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a
program that has cost $65 billion--and counting--to produce
187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air
Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.
In light of all these factors, and with the support of the
Air Force leadership, I concluded that 183--the program of
record since 2005, plus four more added in the FY 09
supplemental--was a sufficient number of F-22s and
recommended as such to the president.
The reaction from parts of Washington has been predictable
for many of the reasons I described before. The most
substantive criticism is that completing the F-22 program
means we are risking the future of U.S. air supremacy. To
assess this risk, it is worth looking at real-world potential
threat and assessing the capabilities that other countries
have now or in the pipeline.
Consider that by 2020, the United States is projected to
have nearly 2,500 manned combat aircraft of all kinds. Of
those, nearly 1,100 will be the most advanced fifth
generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected
to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025,
the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700
of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a
handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese. Nonetheless,
some portray this scenario as a dire threat to America's
national security.
Correspondingly, the recent tests of a possible nuclear
device and ballistic missiles by North Korea brought scrutiny
to the changes in this budget that relate to missile defense.
The risk to national security has again been invoked, mainly
because the total missile defense budget was reduced from
last year.
In fact, where the threat is real or growing--from rogue
states or from short-to-medium range missiles that can hit
our deployed troops or our allies and friends--this budget
sustains or increases funding. Most of the cuts in this area
come from two programs that are designed to shoot down enemy
missiles immediately after launch. This was a great idea, but
the aspiration was overwhelmed by the escalating costs,
operational problems, and technological challenges.
Consider the example of one of those programs--the Airborne
Laser. This was supposed to put high-powered lasers on a
fleet of 747s. After more than a decade of research and
development, we have yet to achieve a laser with enough power
to knock down a missile in boost phase more than 50 miles
from the launch pad--thus requiring these huge planes to
loiter deep in enemy air space to have a feasible chance at a
direct hit. Moreover, the 10 to 20 aircraft needed would cost
about $1.5 billion each plus tens of millions of dollars each
year for maintenance and operating costs. The program and
operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face
reality. So we curtailed the existing program while keeping
the prototype aircraft for research and development.
Many of these decisions--like the one I just described--
were more clear-cut than others. But all of them, insofar as
they involved hundreds of billions of dollars and the
security of the American people, were treated with the utmost
seriousness by the senior civilian and military leadership of
the Pentagon. An enormous amount of thought, study,
assessment, and analysis underpins these budget
recommendations including the National Defense Strategy I
issued last summer.
Some have called for yet more analysis before making any of
the decisions in this budget. But when dealing with programs
that were clearly out of control, performing poorly, and
excess to the military's real requirements, we did not need
more study,

[[Page 18398]]

more debate, or more delay--in effect, paralysis through
analysis. What was needed were three things--common sense,
political will, and tough decisions. Qualities too often in
short supply in Washington, D.C.
All of these decisions involved considering trade-offs,
balancing risks, and setting priorities--separating nice-to-
haves from have-to-haves, requirements from appetites. We
cannot expect to eliminate risk and danger by simply spending
more--especially if we're spending on the wrong things. But
more to the point, we all--the military, the Congress, and
industry--have to face some iron fiscal realities.
The last defense budget submitted by President George W.
Bush for Fiscal Year 2009 was $515 billion. In that budget
the Bush administration proposed--at my recommendation--a
Fiscal Year 2010 defense budget of $524 billion. The budget
just submitted by President Obama for FY 2010 was $534
billion. Even after factoring inflation, and some of the war
costs that were moved from supplemental appropriations,
President Obama's defense request represents a modest but
real increase over the last Bush budget. I know. I submitted
them both. In total, by one estimate, our budget adds up to
about what the entire rest of the world combined spends on
defense. Only in the parallel universe that is Washington,
D.C., would that be considered ``gutting'' defense.
The fact is that if the defense budget had been even
higher, my recommendations to the president with respect to
troubled programs would have been the same--for all the
reasons I described earlier. There is a more fundamental
point: If the Department of Defense can't figure out a way to
defend the United States on a budget of more than half a
trillion dollars a year, then our problems are much bigger
than anything that can be cured by buying a few more ships
and planes.
What is important is to have a budget baseline with a
steady, sustainable, and predictable rate of growth that
avoids extreme peaks and valleys that are enormously harmful
to sound budgeting. From the very first defense budget I
submitted for President Bush in January 2007, I have warned
against doing what America has done multiple times over the
last 90 years by slashing defense spending after a major
conflict. The war in Iraq is winding down, and one day so too
will the conflict in Afghanistan. When that day comes, the
nation will again face pressure to cut back on defense
spending, as we always have. It is simply the nature of the
beast. And the higher our base budget is now, the harder it
will be to sustain these necessary programs, and the more
drastic and dangerous the drop-off will be later.
So where do we go from here? Authorization for more F-22s
is in both versions of the defense bill working its way
through the Congress. The president has indicated that he has
real red lines in this budget, including the F-22. Some might
ask: Why threaten a veto and risk a confrontation over a
couple billion dollars for a dozen or so planes?
The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have
entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to
fund excess or unneeded capacity--whether for more F-22s or
anything else--is a dollar that will be unavailable to take
care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter
potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas
where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable.
That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take.
And, with regard to something like the F-22, irrespective
of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 planes or
200, if we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but
straightforward decision--reflecting the judgment of two very
different presidents, two different secretaries of defense,
two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current
Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the
line? And if not now, when? If we can't get this right--what
on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on
doing Defense business as usual. The President has drawn that
line. And that red line is a veto. And it is real.
On a personal note, I joined CIA more than 40 years ago to
help protect my country. For just about my entire
professional career in government I have generally been known
as a hawk on national security. One criticism of me when I
was at CIA was that I overestimated threats to the security
of our country.
Well, I haven't changed. I did not molt from a hawk into a
dove on January 20, 2009. I continue to believe, as I always
have, that the world is, and always will be, a dangerous and
hostile place for my country with many who would do America
harm and who hate everything we are and stand for. But, the
nature of the threats to us has changed. And so too should
the way our military is organized and equipped to meet them.
I believe--along with the senior military leadership of
this nation--that the defense budget we proposed to President
Obama and that he sent to Congress is the best we could
design to protect the United States now and in the future.
The best we could do to protect our men and women in uniform,
to give them the tools they need to deter our enemies, and to
win our wars today and tomorrow. We stand by this reform
budget, and we are prepared to fight for it.
A final thought. I arrived in Washington 43 years ago this
summer. Of all people, I am well aware of the realities of
Washington and know that things do not change overnight.
After all, the influence of politics and parochial interests
in defense matters is as old as the Republic itself. Henry
Knox, the first secretary of war, was charged with building
the first American fleet. To get the support of Congress,
Knox eventually ended up with six frigates being built in six
different shipyards in six different states.
But the stakes today are very high--with the nation at war,
and a security landscape steadily growing more dangerous and
unpredictable. I am deeply concerned about the long-term
challenges facing our defense establishment--and just as
concerned that the political state of play does not reflect
the reality that major reforms are needed, or that tough
choices and real discipline are necessary.
We stand at a crossroads. We simply cannot risk continuing
down the same path--where our spending and program priorities
are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of today
and the growing ones of tomorrow. These threats demand that
all of our nation's leaders rise above the politics and
parochialism that have too often plagued considerations of
our nation's defense--from industry to interest groups, from
the Pentagon to Foggy Bottom, from one end of Pennsylvania
Avenue to the other. The time has come to draw a line and
take a stand against the business-as-usual approach to
national defense. We must all fulfill our obligation to the
American people to ensure that our country remains safe and
strong. Just as our men and women in uniform are doing their
duty to this end, we in Washington must now do ours.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I am a student of history, and there is
one particular President whom I have grown, along with historians, to
appreciate more and more for his two terms as President of the United
States; that is, Dwight David Eisenhower. We were at peace during
President Eisenhower's term, and many believe that perhaps the war in
Vietnam might have been avoided if we had heeded his wise counsel.
There are many things President Eisenhower did to contribute to this
Nation both in war and in peace.
On several occasions, I have reread his farewell speech of January
17, 1961. In his speech, President Eisenhower said:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the
acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential
for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist. We must never let the weight of this combination
endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should
take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable
citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our
peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may
prosper together.

He also said:

To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much
the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather
those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and
without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex
struggle with liberty at stake.

I would only add to President Eisenhower's farewell address to the
Nation--which is compelling in many ways--that the words should be
changed from ``military-industrial complex'' to ``military-industrial-
congressional complex.''
What we are seeing here, with the advice and counsel of our
President, of our Secretary of Defense, of our uniformed military, with
rare exception, is a recommendation that we stop with this aircraft and
build another--not that we stop building fighter aircraft for our
inventory, not that we stop defending this Nation with weapons systems
we need. We are even defending a weapons system's continued production
that has never flown in the two wars in which we are engaged.
So I urge my colleagues to understand the impact of this amendment.
If we are able to succeed, it is going to send a signal that we are
stopping business as usual, and we must move forward providing the men
and women with the necessary means to win the struggles we are in
throughout the world, especially two wars. So I urge my colleagues to
understand that sacrifices will be made. Jobs will be lost. It will
cause disruption in some communities. But our first obligation is the
defense of this Nation and the use of scarce defense dollars in the
most effective fashion.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Madam President, I yield the floor.

[[Page 18399]]

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I have 2 minutes; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, first of all, let me begin where I did a
few moments ago; that is, with my great respect for Carl Levin and John
McCain and for their work in this area.
Let me begin with a point my friend from Arizona has made. There is
nothing more important than the national security of our Nation. It is
that very argument which brings those of us on this side of the table
in support of this program and in opposition to this amendment.
This program is a critically important program to maintain
superiority--not parity but superiority--which has always been our goal
in protecting our national security interests. It was the very Pentagon
itself which advocated we move forward with this program only 36 months
ago. Obviously, people can change their minds. But over the months,
when they were preparing for the needs of our Nation, it was the
Commission on the Future of Aerospace, authorized by this Congress,
which concluded the following. They said that ``the Nation immediately
reverse the decline in and promote the growth of a scientifically and
technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce,'' adding that ``the
breakdown of America's intellectual and industrial capacity is a threat
to national security and our capability to continue as a world
leader.''
It was the Pentagon, only 36 months ago in their Quadrennial Review,
that said the following--and they said in this report--that: The F-22
production should be extended through fiscal year 2010 with a multiyear
acquisition contract to ensure the Department does not have a gap in
fifth-generation stealth capabilities.
There are reports that the F-35 could be delayed an additional 11
months--what we have already heard about. That creates a gap of 5 years
that we are talking about. The danger of losing not just any jobs,
anywhere from 25,000 to 90,000 aerospace workers is not insignificant.
Four days ago, we were warned there has been in excess of a 15-
percent decline in our industrial capacity in the aerospace industry.
This will hit us even further. The ability to have a workforce capable
of building these aircraft we need in the 21st century is at risk. That
is why the issue not only of the technical capability of the aircraft
but the workforce to produce it is at stake with this amendment. And I
say that respectfully. But we have this gap in production, which we
have been warned about now by the Pentagon--not by the industry itself,
by the Pentagon, by the very Commission this Congress authorized to
determine what our capacities were and the industrial capacity in
aerospace. We are defying both reports and both recommendations by
canceling this program at this number and placing at risk the future
generation of superior aircraft that we need in the 21st century.
So again, Madam President, I urge my colleagues, respectfully, to
reject this amendment. There is a compromise, in my view, available to
end up with a number far less than the originally projected numbers.
But to cancel the program prematurely and create the gap in our
production capabilities is a great danger for our Nation, not to
mention these jobs which are critically important to our Nation and its
future.
For those reasons, I urge the rejection of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes 45 seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I commend the leaders of the committee.
I also commend Senator Chambliss and Senator Dodd for their Herculean
efforts here to try to stave off the closure of the line. I try to put
myself in the shoes of others when I take a position on an issue. What
I say comes from the heart and not because of a lack of respect for the
efforts they have shown in support of their constituents.
We have just come out of 8 years where we have seen our national debt
double. We have incurred as much new debt for our country over the last
8 years as we did in the previous 208 years. We are looking, this year,
at a 1-year deficit higher than any in the history of our country. It
is believed to be well over $1 trillion.
If you go back to 2001 and look at the cost overruns for major
weapons systems, in 2001 it was about $45 billion. Last year, that
number had grown to almost $300 billion. We say to our folks who are
running the Pentagon, the Department of Defense: Tell us which weapons
systems you need and those you do not. And Secretary Gates has said
very clearly, as Gordon England did as well, his deputy, and the last
President and this President: We do not need more F-22s. We have F-15s.
We have F-16s. We have F-18s. Before too many more years, we will have
about 2,500 F-35s.
My hope is we will be smart enough--if people are displaced, if the
F-22 is not continued in production--my hope is we will be smart
enough, since Lockheed has a role in building the F-35, some of the
folks--hands that can build an F-22 can certainly help build F-35s. I
would hope that would be the case.
The last thing I would ask everyone to keep in mind--as an old naval
flight officer, I used to think about and I still think about how much
it costs to fly an aircraft for an hour. It is anywhere from $20,000 to
$40,000 for the F-22. It is just too much money.
Thanks very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, in terms of the alleged gap, there is no
gap. The QDR said we should be building fighters, F-22 production, into
fiscal year 2010. As a matter of fact, what we are now doing is
exceeding that production with F-35s. We have 30 F-35s in this fiscal
year 2010 budget. There is no gap in fighter production.
As to whether the F-35 is a capable fighter, let me just read from
what Secretary Gates says:

The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a
much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of
areas--most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as
destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses. It is a
versatile aircraft, less than half the total cost of the F-
22. . . .

The F-22 is costing an awful lot more than has been represented here
because they are asking now, if this amendment is defeated, that we
would be spending $1.75 billion for seven F-22s, which is approximately
$250 million a copy for the ones the opponents of this amendment want
to build this year.
The President of the United States, the last President of the United
States, the previous one; two Secretaries of Defense, this one and the
previous one; two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the
Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force say
it is time to end production of the F-22 to move into greater
production of the F-35 which will serve three services, not just one.
If not now, when? If not now, when? When will we end production of a
weapons system, if not now, when we have both President Obama and
President Bush trying to end it, Secretaries of Defense trying to end
it, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs trying to end the production of the F-
22? We must now do what is sensible, that which is requested by
Secretary Gates, not because he is saluting the Commander in Chief, as
has been suggested. He is not just saluting the Commander in Chief; he
feels deep in his gut that we must change the way we do business. We
must finally bring some of these systems to an end. That is why
Secretary Gates so passionately believes we must bring production of
the F-22 to an end and move into greater production of the F-35--more
F-35s produced in this budget than would be produced of the F-22 if
this amendment is defeated.
Madam President, I don't know if there is any more time. If there is,
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

[[Page 18400]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1469.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kennedy) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

YEAS--58

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennet
Bond
Brown
Burris
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coburn
Conrad
Corker
DeMint
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shelby
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--40

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennett
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Chambliss
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Feinstein
Grassley
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Lieberman
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shaheen
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Wicker

NOT VOTING--2

Kennedy
Mikulski

The amendment (No. 1469) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________

RECESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate stands in
recess until 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:39 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and
reassembled when called to order by the Acting President pro tempore.

____________________

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--Continued

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I will make some brief remarks here, and at
the conclusion we will determine whether there is an agreement on the
other side so I can go ahead and lay down an amendment. But first I
want to discuss what that amendment will be. It is amendment No. 1628,
and in a moment I will seek to offer it and get it pending. It is an
amendment I introduced with Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and
Senator McCain.
Like other Members of this body, we have watched recent events unfold
in Iran with great concern. This year began with talk of warming ties
and potentially reestablishing contact with Iran; that we would no
longer be afraid to talk to Iran and perhaps to even reach some kinds
of agreements. In recent months, however, the Iranian regime has
continued its support of terrorism, its illegal nuclear weapons program
in defiance of its NPT obligations, and its engagement in violent and
deadly repression of its own citizens.
While the administration has made clear its intention to continue to
pursue high-level talks with Iran, an overture which the regime has not
seen fit to even respond, the President has indicated that the window
for Iran to negotiate and demonstrate progress toward complying with
its international obligations is not open indefinitely.
I think President Obama was correct when he said:

Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat
to Israel and a threat to the United States, but would be
profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a
whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle
East that would be extraordinarily dangerous for all
concerned, including for Iran.

In May, the President indicated that Iran would have until December
to show meaningful improvement. More recently, French President Nicolas
Sarkozy said on behalf of the G8 nations that they will give Iran until
September 2009 to agree to negotiations with respect to its nuclear
activities or face tougher sanctions.
If negotiations do not prove fruitful, the United States must be
ready to act quickly to increase pressure on Iran to end its support
for terrorist groups and its illegal nuclear program.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that
the President should sanction the Iranian Central Bank if, by December,
Iran has not verifiably halted its uranium enrichment activities, as
well as come into full compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty and the Additional Protocol.

By sanctioning the Central Bank of Iran--Bank Markazi--our
Nation would send the message that we will use all methods at
our disposal to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and oppose
sponsors of terror.

The case against the Iranian Central Bank is strong. It is knee-deep
in the regime's illicit activities. Last year, Deputy Secretary of the
Treasury Robert Kimmit revealed that between 2001 and 2006 the bank had
moved $50 million from banks in London to Hezbollah front organizations
in Beirut. Hezbollah, of course, is a terrorist organization.
It also processes transactions for Iranian banks that already face
U.S. sanctions. The Central Bank of Iran is instrumental in helping
Iranian banks--the very ones this body voted overwhelmingly to sanction
in 2007--to avoid sanctions. In March 2008, the Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury warned financial
institutions about the illicit behavior of the Central Bank of Iran.
Here is what the advisory said:

The Central Bank of Iran and Iranian commercial banks have
requested that their names be removed from global
transactions in order to make it more difficult for
intermediary financial institutions to determine the true
parties in the transaction. They have also continued to
provide financial services to Iranian entities designated by
the U.N. Security Council in its Resolutions 1737 and 1747.
The U.S. Department of Treasury is particularly concerned
that the Central Bank of Iran may be facilitating
transactions for sanctioned Iranian banks.

Under U.S. law, institutions that aid entities covered by financial
sanctions are liable to penalties. The Central Bank's activities
clearly warrant such action, and sanctioning the bank would increase
the effectiveness of existing measures. I urge my colleagues to support
our amendment at such time as we are able to get a vote on it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend
from Arizona, Senator Kyl, for his very strong statement. I rise to
speak in support of this bipartisan amendment which I have cosponsored
along with Senator Kyl, Senator Bayh, and Senator McCain.
As you know, President Obama has made a historic offer to Iran's
leaders, inviting them to engage in direct diplomacy to resolve the
outstanding differences between our two countries. As the President has
repeatedly said, the door is open for the Iranians to come in out of
the cold, if they choose to do so. It is by suspending their illicit
nuclear activities and ending their support for terrorism that the
Iranians have a clear path to ending their international isolation and
taking their rightful place in the community of nations.
Unfortunately, as Senator Kyl said, it has now been more than 3\1/2\
months since the formal offer of engagement was made by President
Obama, and there has been no reply from the Iranians. Meanwhile, Iran's
illicit nuclear activities have continued to speed forward, in
violation of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions. Thousands

[[Page 18401]]

of additional centrifuges are being installed, and more and more
fissile material is being stockpiled.
At the same time, Iran's support for terrorist proxies in Iraq, in
Lebanon, and in the Palestinian Authority areas has continued. And, of
course, over the past month we and the rest of the world have watched
with horror as the Iranian regime has engaged in a brutal crackdown
against its own people, who have sought no more than basic human
rights.
President Obama, together with our international allies, has been
very clear that we will not wait indefinitely for the Iranians to
respond to our offer of talks, nor will we enter into negotiations--if
that is the willingness of the Iranians--that go on without end. Two
weeks ago, at the annual G8 summit in Italy, the President joined with
other world leaders to make clear to the Iranians that they have until
the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, at the end of September, to return to the
negotiating table or face the consequences.
The amendment Senators Kyl, Bayh, McCain, and I have put forward
would place the full weight of the U.S. Senate behind the time frame
that the President and the G8 have articulated. Our amendment expresses
our strong hope that Iran seizes this historic opportunity for direct
dialogue.
We also make clear that if the Iranians have failed to engage with us
diplomatically by the time of that G20 summit 2 months from now, it is
our preference that multilateral sanctions be imposed through the
United Nations Security Council. However, the Iranian Government--the
regime that controls the people of Iran--must also understand that the
United States is itself prepared to put in place what Secretary of
State Clinton a while ago referred to as crippling sanctions in the
event that they in Tehran continue to flaunt the will of the
international community.
Specifically, our amendment asks the President to impose sanctions on
the Central Bank of Iran and other banks involved in proliferation and
terrorist activities, in the event that the Iranians haven't entered
into negotiations that are serious by the time of the Pittsburgh summit
or if they haven't suspended enrichment and reprocessing activities
within 60 days of that summit.
The Central Bank of Iran is the financial lifeline of that regime. It
is an entity that our own Treasury Department says has engaged in
deceptive financial practices and facilitated the efforts of other
Iranian banks that are involved in bankrolling proliferation and
terrorist activities to avoid international sanctions, and that have
themselves been sanctioned by the U.N. and our Treasury Department as a
result.
I will say this. The idea of imposing sanctions on the Iranian
Central Bank is not new. It has already been endorsed by a bipartisan
majority in this Chamber. Last year, the Senate Banking Committee,
under Chairman Dodd, adopted bipartisan legislation by a vote of 19 to
2 to urge the President to immediately impose sanctions against the
Central Bank. Also last year, the House of Representatives passed such
legislation that urged immediate sanctions.
More recently, the legislation that Senators Bayh, Kyl, and I
introduced this spring--the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, S.
908--in addition to the other steps it takes--also expresses the sense
of the Senate that the President should impose sanctions against the
Central Bank of Iran.
I am very grateful to report that S. 908, the Iran Refined Petroleum
Sanctions Act, now has 67 Members of the Senate, a strong bipartisan
group of 67, or two-thirds, as cosponsors of that legislation. These
cosponsors range all across the ideological spectrum of Members of the
Senate, and clearly make the point to Iran and to the rest of the world
that whatever other differences we have, we stand together here as a
strong majority and beyond the Senate in our concern about the nuclear
proliferation and terror-sponsoring activities of the Iranian
Government.
You might say, if you are one of the 67 cosponsors of S. 908--which
does more than this amendment does but includes it--you have already
spoken in favor of this amendment.
This amendment, I want to point out and make clear, in no way ties
the President's hand in his diplomacy with Iran. That is not our
intent. The amendment is about empowering the President, giving him
additional leverage in his diplomacy, by endorsing the same timetable
that came out of the G8 summit a short while ago. The effect is this,
and I will repeat: The Iranians must appreciate that there will be
consequences if they fail to respond to the international community's
diplomatic initiatives; in other words, if they continue to speed their
nuclear program forward.
I think this amendment will send an unmistakable message to the
fanatical regime in Tehran, in support of the G8, in support of
President Obama: Either you can engage with the United States and the
world community and take steps to suspend your nuclear activities or
you can continue on your current course, in which case you will face
the crippling sanctions this sense-of-the-Senate resolution calls for.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before my colleague Senator Lieberman
leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for this amendment. We are
working right now to see if we can get the amendment pending and
possibly a voice vote, because it is clear it is a very important
amendment and one where I think we need to express very strongly the
sense of the Senate, given the situation as it exists in Iran.
I wish to thank Senator Lieberman, and right now it is my
understanding that your side is checking to see if it is an agreeable
amendment. Hopefully, we will get that decision and move forward with
it right away on a voice vote, if that is agreeable to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Arizona. I am encouraged by
that. And in talking to the other cosponsors, we would be happy to have
a voice vote. It would send a message.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is straightforward and
expresses the sense of the Senate that there should be a date certain--
and soon--by which Iran is required to end its nuclear program or face
severe sanctions. The amendment expresses that if the Iranian regime
has not accepted the offer of the United States of direct diplomatic
talks by the time of the G20 summit in late September or if it has not
suspended all of its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities
within 60 days after the summit, and if the U.N. Security Council does
not adopt new and significant and meaningful sanctions on the regime,
the President should sanction the Central Bank of Iran.
The situation with respect to Iran is nearing the crisis point, if it
is not there already. We have all watched the brutal crackdown in the
streets of Tehran and elsewhere as the Iranian regime imposed the
results of a fraudulent election. We have been astonished by the
courage and resolve of those Iranian citizens who have protested for
their own inalienable rights in the face of repression. And we have
known that, while these dramatic events have played themselves out, the
Iranian regime has continued its enrichment of uranium, growing ever
closer to the day on which it has a nuclear weapons capability.
The Iranian regime has gotten away with too much for too long. Its
illicit nuclear activities, combined with its development of
unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles, support for Hezbollah
and other terrorist groups, and its repeated threats against Israel and
the United States, represent a real and growing threat to the security
of the United States and the Middle East. It is in the interest of the
United States, and the world's other great powers, to achieve an end to
the Iranian nuclear program.

[[Page 18402]]

The administration has held out an ``open hand,'' making clear that
it intends to open direct talks with Iran. Yet 3\1/2\ months since the
President's formal offer, the Iranian government has made no response,
nor has it suspended its enrichment activities, as required by U.N.
Security Council resolutions. Time is not on the side of those pushing
the Iranians to cease these dangerous actions. Administration officials
and others, including the French President, have stated that they will
not wait interminably while the Iranian nuclear program proceeds.
At the G-8 summit 2 weeks ago, the assembled leaders agreed that the
Iranians do not have forever, and that they should return to the
negotiating table by the time of the G-20 summit in September. This
amendment puts the Senate on record behind that timeframe, irrespective
of any Senator's individual view about the likelihood of agreement
soon.
Make no mistake: we must not wait interminably. According to the
IAEA's latest report, Iran has increased its stockpile of low enriched
uranium by some 60 percent in the previous 6 months, and has brought
the number of active centrifuges above 7,000. The IAEA also reported
that Iran denied inspectors access to the Arak heavy water reactor. As
the threats--including to the State of Israel--continue.
As the Secretary of State has recently articulated, should Iran
continue to defy the international community, it must face severe
sanctions. Should the regime not take up the historic offer extended to
it, this resolution advocates sanctions on the Iranian Central Bank,
the country's major connection to the international financial system.
The U.S. Treasury Department has stated that the central bank has
engaged in deceptive financial practices and facilitated the movement
of funds to those involved in proliferation and terrorist activities.
This must end, and in fact 67 Senators have cosponsored legislation--
the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act--that urges the President to
sanction the central bank.
By adopting this resolution, we will send an unmistakable message to
the government of Iran that its actions are unacceptable and will
result in real and severe consequences if continued. The administration
has offered to talk; the ball is in the Iranian court, and if that
regime continues down its destructive path, we have no choice but to
impose crippling sanctions for its continued defiance.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Let me point out again, this amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate
amendment, an important sense of the Senate but certainly one that
allows the administration the latitude it needs in its handling of its
relations with Iran.
I yield the floor.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I would first ask to speak as in morning
business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to recognize that tremendously
hard work both the chair of the Armed Services Committee and ranking
member are doing. We are very proud of the chairman, coming from
Michigan, and of all of his excellent work in standing up for the
troops. This bill is another example of that.
I would like to congratulate him and the Senator from Arizona for
working together on this very important bill.

Health Care Reform

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I want to speak for a moment on health
care. We are hearing a lot, as we hear from colleagues, many
colleagues--not every one but many colleagues on the other side of the
aisle--about the need to be against health care reform, to be a ``no.''
We all know that saying no to health care reform means we are going
to have the status quo. ``No'' equals the status quo. For too many
families, too many businesses all across this country, that is
absolutely not acceptable.
The status quo works, it is good--for special interests making
profits off the current system. But it is bad for American families,
American small businesses, American manufacturers that are trying to
pay the bills and trying to make sure health care is available for the
employees.
We need change. We are here because the system, with all of its good
parts--and there are many strengths in the American system--is also
broken in too many cases for people. We want to build on what works and
what is great and we want to fix what is broken.
Right now our current health care system is bankrupting too many
families. We know over 60 percent of bankruptcies are linked to medical
expenses, and 75 percent of families who file bankruptcy actually have
health insurance. Those with insurance, on average, are putting out
medical expenses of over $18,000 when they file--even though they have
an insurance policy.
There are many families--we are not only talking about those who do
not have health insurance, but those who do who find themselves in very
difficult situations.
I am constantly amazed when I hear the argument about: We can't do
any kind of reform because reform means putting a bureaucrat between
your doctor and yourself. You and your doctor can't make decisions
about what you need for your health care.
Do you know who stands between you and your doctor right now? An
insurance company, an insurance company bureaucrat. Your doctors can't
just give you whatever tests they wish. You are not able to get
whatever care you need for your family. The first call they make is to
the insurance company, and it decides.
Reform is about putting health care decisions back in the hands of
doctors and patients and being able to create a system that actually
works for people. That is what it is all about.
I set up online the Health Care People's Lobby for those I represent
in the State of Michigan so they could share their stories. We have a
lot of folks lining the halls who represent all kinds of interests, all
kinds of special interests, and they tell us what they think should be
happening or not happening. But in Michigan we have set up the Health
Care People's Lobby so people can share their stories about the real
world operating under the current system.
If the system worked today, there would be no reason for us to be
here. We would be working on something else. But the fact is, we are
spending twice as much on health care as any other country and have 47
million people at any one time who do not have health insurance. Those
two numbers don't add up.
On top of that, people who are currently covered are battling every
day to try to get what they thought they were paying for or to make
sure their family is covered or that test or procedure or medicine can
be covered.
One constituent of mine in Michigan, Sandra Marczewski from
Waterford, MI, wrote to me that she and her husband have been without
insurance for 7 months now. She writes:

You have no idea the fear I walk around with every day.

That is too many people in Michigan, over a million people in
Michigan, without insurance altogether, and millions more who are
fearful every day if they lose their job, their health care goes with
it, for themselves and their families. People every night are putting
the kids to bed and worrying about whether someone is going to get
sick, saying a prayer: Please, God, don't let the kids get sick. Don't
let me get sick. I have to be able to go to work so I can make sure we
still have our health care.
There are a lot of people, as I mentioned before, who make a lot of
money off of the status quo, off of the current system. It is no
surprise they don't want to change it. All the ads we see, all the
things going on, all the scare tactics that are going on--and there are
plenty of scare tactics going on right now--all of that is about trying
to scare people and raise red flags. It is easy just to be no, no, no.
We certainly hear that around here all the time, people who are just
saying no to any kind of progress or change or making things better for
people.
The reality is, the status quo for a lot of folks means more profit,
and

[[Page 18403]]

that is underlying a lot of the motivation of what is going on right
now. Our job is to make sure the American people can afford health care
and have the care they need for their families. For too many families,
the status quo means insecurity, expenses, and fear that come along
with not knowing whether they are going to be able to afford the health
care they have from month to month and whether they will, in fact, even
have health care.
We are here because when it comes to health care, American families
and businesses are in a serious crisis, and they are asking us for
action. The status quo is not good enough anymore. It is not working.
It is going to bankrupt families, businesses, and the country. High
health care costs are causing cuts in benefits, increases in premiums,
adding to the ranks of the uninsured at alarming rates. Even those who
have insurance, as I indicated before, are feeling the pain of the
current system. Every day in America families are forced to choose a
different doctor because their health care plan was changed, because
their employer can no longer afford the old plan they had.
Skyrocketing health care costs make American businesses less
competitive in the global economy. It costs us jobs, and I can speak
directly to that coming from the great State of Michigan.
Every day in America, families see their health care plan benefits
eroding because they cannot keep up with high premiums, copays, and
deductibles. Every day in America, people decide to skip a doctor visit
and the medication and treatment they know they need because they
cannot afford the payment--in the greatest country in the world--
because the expense is too high. Year after year, as health care costs
increase, American families are losing the very parts of their health
care they value most: their choice of doctor, hospital, and insurance
plans; their choice of treatments; the security and stability that
comes from knowing they are covered if anything goes wrong. That is
what we are about fixing. That is what we will fix as we do health care
reform.
Recently, Families USA found that the average costs of family
coverage in the workplace rose 78 percent in 7 years--78 percent.
During those years, health insurance company profits ballooned 428
percent. At the same time, wages went up about 15 percent. So wages go
up 15 percent, health insurance profits go up 428 percent, and premiums
just keep rising for businesses and individuals.
The fact is, we cannot wait to get started on reform. The status quo
is not acceptable and ``no'' equals the status quo. So we are here
working with colleagues to get it done. Doing nothing is not
acceptable.
Recently, the nonpartisan Robert Wood Johnson Foundation released a
report that projects if Federal reform efforts are not enacted within
10 years, the cost of health care for businesses could double and the
number of uninsured could rise to over 65 million people with middle-
class families being hit the hardest. The report shows if health care
reform is not enacted, individuals and families would see health care
costs dramatically increased.
Total individual and family spending on premiums and out-of-pocket
costs could increase 68 percent in the next 10 years. I cannot imagine
68 percent out-of-pocket costs. That is if we do nothing, if we listen
to those just saying no. Even under the best-case scenario, health care
costs would likely increase, according to this report, at least 46
percent. And I can tell you absolutely wages are not going to go up 46
percent. Businesses could see their health care costs doubled within 10
years. The report found that employer spending on premiums would more
than double, and even in the best-case economic condition, employer
spending on health care will rise 72 percent. The result would likely
be far fewer Americans being able to be offered insurance or accepting
employer-sponsored insurance. Estimates suggest a drop of 56 percent of
Americans who are now covered by their employers, dropping from 56 to
49 percent in 10 years.
So there are many numbers. There are numbers that relate to the
public programs of Medicaid and children's health insurance and the
increased cost there as well and what will happen if we do nothing. The
amount of uncompensated care in the health care system will increase,
and the worst-case scenario: the total of uncompensated care could
double.
By the way, when we say ``uncompensated care,'' that does not mean
somebody is not paying for it. That is why our premiums, if you have
insurance, go up so much. It means someone can't afford to see a
doctor, can't take their children to the doctor, so they don't get the
tests on the front end that they need or they don't see a doctor. They
wait until they are really sick, and then they go to the emergency
room. They are served, as they should be, and it is the most expensive
venue in which to do ongoing care for people. But they are served, and
then guess what happens. Everyone who has insurance sees their rates go
up to pay for it.
That is what it means when we say that covering the uninsured will
lower costs as we go out. I mean it will take time to do this, but over
time what we are doing is working to change the way we pay for health
care now because we pay for it in the most expensive way, by ignoring
the problem, not focusing on health and wellness and primary care but
waiting until people are in the worst possible situation: they go to
the emergency room, they get care when they are sicker than they
otherwise would be if they could see a doctor. And then we pay for it.
That is what we want to change and will change under health care
reform.
So this is about many facets. We know we have a system in America
that works for many; they are blessed. We are blessed to have health
insurance. For the many who have insurance, it allows them to cover
their family needs. The system works well. But for many others it does
not. And the reality is, we all pay for a system that does not work
effectively for everyone. We all end up paying because the reality is,
you can say: Well, I am not going to buy a car, I do not need car
insurance; I am not going to buy a house, I do not need house
insurance, but sooner or later, you are going to get sick, and just
because you don't have health insurance does not mean there is not
going to be a cost for yourself and your family.
We are a great country. We can do better than what we are doing
today. We have to do better. We are working hard to have a bipartisan
effort that will move reform forward in this country, to make a real
difference to change the system so it works for everyone and begins to
lower the cost over time of what is happening, the explosion in health
care costs in this country.
The option of saying no is not good enough. ``No'' equals the status
quo. We just cannot have that. The public gets it. It is time for us to
get it as well and move forward. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.

Amendment No. 1628

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up the Lieberman-Kyl amendment and
ask for its immediate consideration. It is at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Kyl, for
himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. McCain, proposes an
amendment numbered 1628.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on imposing sanctions with
respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran)

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1232. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON IMPOSING SANCTIONS WITH
RESPECT TO THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, combined with its development of
unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and support for
international terrorism, represent a grave threat to the
security of the United States and United States allies in
Europe, the Middle East, and around the world.

[[Page 18404]]

(2) The United States and other responsible countries have
a vital interest in working together to prevent the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapons capability.
(3) As President Barack Obama said, ``Iran obtaining a
nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a
threat to the United States, but would be profoundly
destabilizing in the international community as a whole and
could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that
would be extraordinarily dangerous for all concerned,
including for Iran.''.
(4) The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly
called attention to the illicit nuclear activities of the
Islamic Republic of Iran, and, as a result, the United
Nations Security Council has adopted a range of sanctions
designed to encourage the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran to cease those activities and comply with its
obligations under the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968,
and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the
``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'').
(5) The Department of the Treasury has imposed sanctions on
several Iranian banks, including Bank Melli, Bank Saderat,
Bank Sepah, and Bank Mellat, for their involvement in
proliferation activities or support for terrorist groups.
(6) The Central Bank of Iran, the keystone of Iran's
financial system and its principal remaining lifeline to the
international banking system, has engaged in deceptive
financial practices and facilitated such practices among
banks involved in proliferation activities or support for
terrorist groups, including Bank Sepah and Bank Melli, in
order to evade sanctions imposed by the United States and the
United Nations.
(7) On April 8, 2009, the United States formally extended
an offer to engage in direct diplomacy with the Government of
the Islamic Republic of Iran through negotiations with the
five permanent members of the United States Security Council
and Germany (commonly referred to as the ``P5-plus-1
process''), in the hope of resolving all outstanding disputes
between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States.
(8) The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has yet
to make a formal reply to the April 8, 2009, offer of direct
diplomacy by the United States or to engage in direct
diplomacy with the United States through the P5-plus-1
process.
(9) On July 8, 2009, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France
warned that the Group of Eight major powers will give the
Islamic Republic of Iran until September 2009 to accept
negotiations with respect to its nuclear activities or face
tougher sanctions.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should--
(A) seize the historic offer put forward by President
Barack Obama to engage in direct diplomacy with the United
States;
(B) suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing
activities, including research and development, and work on
all heavy-water related projects, including the construction
of a research reactor moderated by heavy water, as demanded
by multiple resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council; and
(C) come into full compliance with the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, including the additional protocol to
the Treaty; and
(2) the President should impose sanctions on the Central
Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in
proliferation activities or support for terrorist groups, as
well as any other sanctions the President determines
appropriate, if--
(A) the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran--
(i) has not accepted the offer by the United States to
engage in direct diplomacy through the P5-plus-1 process
before the Summit of the Group of 20 (G-20) in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, in September 2009; or
(ii) has not suspended all enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities and work on all heavy-water related
projects within 60 days of the conclusion of that Summit; and
(B) the United Nations Security Council has failed to adopt
significant and meaningful additional sanctions on the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Mr. McCAIN. The amendment is in the name of Senators Kyl and
Lieberman. I am calling it up on their behalf.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not,
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1628) was agreed to.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator
from Michigan. Republicans and I believe most Democrats want health
care reform this year. The President said he wants health care reform
this year. Republicans want health care reform this year. We want to
make sure it is done right. Let me put it this way: If we were in an
operating room and a seriously ill patient came in and we knew we had
only one chance to save that patient's life and to make that patient
healthy, our goal would not be to see if we could do it in the next
week, it would be to see if we could get it right.
So far, the proposals we have seen coming out of the committees have
not gotten it right. One might say: Well, that is a Republican view of
Democratic proposals. Perhaps it is. But the proposals we have seen
coming out of the Senate HELP Committee and out of the House of
Representatives flunk the most important test, which is cost. The most
important test is whether Americans can afford their health care and,
after we get through fixing it, whether they can afford their
government. According to virtually everyone we have heard from, the
legislation we have seen simply does not meet that test.
In my opinion, what we should do instead is start with the framework
of the bill sponsored by Democratic Senator Wyden and Republican
Senator Bennett which has 14 cosponsors--8 Democrats, 6 Republicans.
This is a different sort of framework that offers virtually every
American coverage, does so without any Washington takeover or
government-run programs without raising the debt one penny, according
to the Congressional Budget Office. Remember, I said that is a
framework. I do not agree with every single part of that bill, although
I am a cosponsor, but it may be a much better place to start than what
we have seen so far.
That is not just my opinion. Lately, we have heard a lot about the
Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. President Obama has talked a lot about
the Mayo Clinic. The point is, at the Mayo Clinic and a few other
clinics around the country, there have been significantly better
outcomes. In other words, if you go there and come out, you are more
likely to be well, and at a lower cost. And the question is, Why?
The President has repeatedly pointed to the Mayo Clinic, Democratic
Senators point to the Mayo Clinic, and Republican Senators point to the
Mayo Clinic. Here is what the Mayo Clinic had to say on Friday about
the legislation that is being considered in the House of
Representatives:

Although there are some positives in the current House Tri-
committee bill, including insurance for all and payment
reform demonstration projects--the proposed legislation
misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more
affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the
opposite.

That is the Mayo Clinic talking.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient
focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a
fundamental lever--a change in Medicare payment policy--to
help drive necessary improvements in American health care.
Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good
patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of
transformation in American health care will wither. The real
losers will be the citizens of the United States of America.

That is the Mayo Clinic talking about the bill we are beginning to
see in the House of Representatives.
I think the prudent thing to do is to try to make that bill better or
start over and certainly not try to pass a 1,000-page or 2,000-page
bill in 1 week or 10 days without knowing what is in it, as we did with
the stimulus bill earlier this year.
That is not just the opinion of the Mayo Clinic. Here is a letter to
House Members on July 16, a few days ago, from a number of clinics,
including the Mayo Clinic. These are the Intermountain Healthcare,
Gundersen Lutheran Health System, the Iowa Clinic, the Marshfield
Clinic, the Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative, ThedaCare, and
Wisconsin Hospital Association.
I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record
following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

[[Page 18405]]

(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. It goes on to say:

On behalf of some of the nation's leaders in health care
delivery--

These are the people whose hospitals we go to, whose clinics we go to
when we are sick or when we hope to stay well--

we write to you to comment on the House bill.

They say:

We applaud the Congress for working on this. However, we
have got significant concerns.

They go on to say there are three of them.
The first is about the Medicare-like public plan, as they call it, a
public plan with rates based on Medicare. They say it will have a
severe negative effect on their facilities, that they lose a lot of
money every year, hundreds of millions of dollars. Because what happens
is that Medicare, a government-run plan, pays its doctors and its
clinics and its hospitals about 80 percent of what private insurance
companies are paying. So roughly 177 million of us have private
insurance of one kind or another. If a doctor sees you, he gets paid
100 percent. But if you go to one of these clinics and hospitals, they
are paid according to the government rate, which is roughly 80 percent
of the private rate. These clinics say that is not sustainable for
them, and that if that continues, some of those providers, such as the
Mayo Clinic, will eventually be driven out of the market. What market?
The market for Medicare patients. Those are the 45 million senior
Americans who absolutely depend on Medicare for their service because
for most of them, that is their only option. If that is the case, what
that means is they will not be able to go to the Mayo Clinic or to the
MeritCare Health System or to the Iowa Clinic or to the doctor they
choose because that doctor will not be a part of the Medicare system
because of low reimbursement.
So that is the first objection these clinics make to the bill they
see coming because the bill they see coming proposes to create another
government-run plan with government-set rates.
The second objection they have is geographic payment disparities.
They say that we are a big country and there ought to be differences in
the pay among different geographies.
Third, and maybe this is the most important of all, that the
President has said and many of us in the Senate have said we need to
change the way we pay for medical care, and we ought to pay more for
value, for quality, for results, and less for volume--in plain English,
not how many patients a doctor can see but how many of his or her
patients stay well or get well.
We have talked about that for weeks here in our hearings. But what
these respected voices in medicine are saying is that the legislation
we see today--and understand, this is not even in a bill that has
presented to us in the Senate yet in a way upon which we can act--does
not meet the test for that. The legislation we have seen so far is
running into a lot of trouble.
David Broder, the respected columnist from the Washington Post, said
that the plans which have been passed in a partisan way are ``badly
flawed'' and ``overly expensive.'' I mean, the Democratic plans; we
have Republican plans that we would like to be considered. I mentioned
that the Wyden-Bennett plan, which is the only really bipartisan plan
here, has not been given one bit of consideration so far in the Senate.
And then Senator Burr and Senator Coburn have a plan, Senator Gregg has
a plan, and Senator Hatch has a plan. We all have different ideas. As I
said, we would like for them to be considered, today I'm talking about
the Democratic plans that are now being considered.
The Congressional Budget Office, of course, is the nonpartisan office
in this Congress that we count on as an umpire to tell us what we are
really doing. It is not supposed to have any political rhetoric. Last
Thursday, the head of the Congressional Budget Office, Douglas
Elmendorf was asked at a Senate Budget Committee hearing what he
thought about the bills which had begun to emerge.
He said:

The legislation significantly expands the Federal
responsibility for health care costs.

In other words, here we go, at a time when we are in a recession and
where the President's proposals for other programs will add more to the
debt in the next 10 years, three times as much as we spent in World War
II, and we are talking about legislation that would add another $2
trillion. We haven't dealt with cost which is where we ought to start.
Look at the 250 million who have health care and ask the question: Can
you afford it? Then after we get through fixing it, can you afford your
government? And what the head of the CBO is saying, as far as the
government goes, the answer is no.
Then the Lewin Group, a well-respected private agency, was asked what
would happen if we had a government-run program which many of us
believe will lead to another Washington takeover. We are getting
accustomed to this, Washington takeovers of banks, of insurance
companies, of student loans, of car companies, now maybe of health
care. The Lewin Group said 88 million people will lose their private
employer-sponsored insurance. How could that happen? It could happen
because a small employer or a big employer would see one of these plans
that is beginning to come out take place. To be specific, the Senate
HELP Committee plan says you either have to provide everybody who works
for you insurance or pay $750. There are a lot of employers who cannot
afford to provide everybody the kind of insurance that is envisioned.
So they will say: OK, we will pay the $750 fine to the government. What
happens? All those employees lose their health insurance. Where do they
go? Into the Government plan. That is their option. Some of them may
have a choice of other plans, but if they do have a choice and one of
the choices is a government-run plan, it may have the same future the
Mayo Clinic and others were saying Medicare was causing to them.
The government will set a low price for the doctors and a low price
for the clinics. So all these employees who now have insurance that
they like will lose that insurance because of the passage of this bill.
The government will set the provider rates and physician rates low, and
so they will be part of a government plan for which many doctors and
many hospitals and many clinics will not offer services. It is similar
to giving somebody a bus ticket to a bus station with no busses.
Then there are the Medicare cuts. According to the Washington Post
last week, Medicare cuts will pay for one-half the cost of health care
for the uninsured in one of the bills being proposed.
If we are to find savings in Medicare and take from the 45 million
elderly people who depend on Medicare, every bit of those savings ought
to be put back into Medicare and not spent on some new program. I don't
think legislation that is paid for half by Medicare cuts is going to go
very far in this Chamber.
Then there are the employer taxes. According to the National
Federation of Independent Businesses, the House version has an 8-
percent Federal payroll tax. I mentioned the Senate version, a $750
annual fine per employee, if the employer doesn't offer insurance. The
NFIB, small businesses, estimates that will lose about 1.6 million
jobs.
How could that be? Well, if a small employer or even a large one has
government-mandated costs added and they have less money, they will
hire less employees. That is one of the options they have.
Then there is the income surtax. There is a whole string of trouble
for these bills. USA Today on Monday said: It is the highest tax rate
in a quarter of a century that is proposed: A 45-percent top tax rate
with all taxes included.
Then rationing, there are provisions in this bill which would have
the government make decisions about which treatment you will have and
how long you will have to wait to see a doctor.
Finally--I say ``finally'' because this is the subject I want to
spend a moment on--there is the Medicaid State taxes. Sometimes this
gets confusing.

[[Page 18406]]

Mr. President, 177 million Americans have private insurance, but a lot
of people have government insurance now. Veterans do. Military people
have TRICARE insurance. About 45 million older people have Medicare.
But then there is a program called Medicaid, which is the largest
government-run program. About 60 million people are in it now. The
Federal Government pays about 57 percent of it, and the States pay 43
percent. Every Governor I know--and I was once one--has struggled with
the Medicaid Program. I once came up here in the early 1980s and asked
President Reagan to take it all, let the Federal Government run it and
give us Governors all of kindergarten through the 12th grade. I thought
that would be a good swap.
I saw a couple of Democratic Governors earlier today, and we talked
about the story every Governor faces. If you have an extra dollar and
you want to put it in higher education so you can improve the quality
of the University of Colorado or Tennessee or keep tuition from going
up, what happens to it? That dollar is stolen because it has to go in
the increasing Medicaid cost. It is an inefficiently managed program.
The Federal Government keeps changing the rules. The Governors have to
get permission from Washington whenever they make minor changes. It is
demolishing State governments right and left.
If our real goal is to help people, then why under these new plans do
we say to low-income people--defined as, say, a family of four who
makes less than $32,000--your only option is going to be to go in the
Medicaid Program under this plan. It is estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office and others that 15 or 20 million Americans will be added
to the 60 million in the Medicaid Program. What will they find when
they get there? They will find that 40 percent of the doctors don't see
Medicaid patients. When we add another 15 or 20 million people to it,
it may be a larger number. Why don't they do see Medicaid patients? For
the same reason the Mayo Clinic warned about this government plan in
its letter. It is because Medicaid only pays its doctors and its
hospitals about 72 percent of what Medicare pays.
If you are confused by that, it works out pretty simply. Medicare
pays 80 percent of what the private insurers pay, and Medicaid pays
about 72 percent of what Medicare pays. If you are a doctor or a clinic
or a hospital, you get paid about 60 percent, if you are helping a
Medicaid patient, of what you would if you were helping one of us who
has his or her own private health care. You can see that will be a
pernicious trend. If we continue to dump low-income people into a
government-run Medicaid Program, that is what will happen.
There is another thing that happens with Medicaid. Many members of
the committees working on this bill said: We can't let that happen. We
can't be inhumane and just say we are out here to help people who are
uninsured, and we are going to dump 20 million of them into a
government-run program that doesn't have enough doctors and hospitals
and clinics. We will have to raise what we pay to doctors and clinics.
That sounds good, but that is very expensive, particularly for a
program such as Medicaid that, according to the Government
Accountability Office, $1 out of every $10 is fraudulent, is wasted.
That is $32 billion a year. That is the program we are going to expand?
That is the program we are going to say to low-income people:
Congratulations, go into this program where you are not likely to find
a doctor every time you want one, and there are a lot of hospitals and
clinics that will not take you because we will not pay them for that.
Because Senators and Congressmen hear that, they say: We will raise
the rates. Here is the proposal: The proposal is, we are going to
increase the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid by 133 to
150 percent of the Federal poverty level. That is a substantial
increase. Then, if we are going to do that and put many more people
into the program, we are going to have to order an increase in what we
pay the doctors and the clinics to serve them, maybe up to 83 or 85
percent of the Medicare level.
Let me talk about what that would do in one State. We called the
State Medicaid director in Tennessee. Our program is called TennCare.
We said: What would it cost Tennessee if we increase coverage of
Medicaid up to 150 percent of the Federal poverty level? The answer
came back, nearly $600 million a year. That is the State's share of the
cost which is a little more than a third. The Federal Government's
share is twice that. So the Federal Government is saying: That is all
right. We know Tennessee doesn't have the money to do that, so we will
pay it all for the first 5 years. Then, after 5 years, so the talk
goes--and we were told, when we were working on this bill, this is an
assumption--we will shift these costs back to Colorado, back to
Tennessee. Back comes what in today's dollars is about $600 million to
the State of Tennessee.
Remember what I said. This is a program doctors don't want to go to
because they don't get paid very well. So we will have to increase the
amount of money we pay doctors. So if States are required to pay
doctors and providers under the Medicaid system 110 percent of what
Medicare is paid, that still isn't what doctors and hospitals get, if
they see somebody with private health insurance. That is about the same
amount of money, about $600 million added just for the State cost,
which brings the total new state cost for paying physicians and
hospitals more and for all the new people in the Medicaid Program to
$1.2 billion. That is a huge amount of money.
We throw around dollars up here and figures that make any amount of
money seem unimaginable. What is $1 trillion, what is $10 trillion,
what is $40 billion. We former Governors can imagine it. I figured it
out. If in 5 years you shifted back to the State of Tennessee just its
share of those costs from the expansion of Medicaid and paying the
doctors and hospitals more, the bill for the State of Tennessee to pay
the increased Medicaid costs would be an amount of money that equals a
new 10-percent State income tax.
The truth is, for our State--and I believe for almost every State--it
is an amount of money that nobody has enough taxes to pay. You can run
politicians in and out and defeat them for raising taxes all day long,
and they still couldn't come up with ways to pay for it. In other
words, these bills are based on a premise and assumption that will
either bankrupt the States or, if the Federal Government says we will
pay for it all, it will add $5, $6, $700 billion more over 10 years to
the legislation we are considering.
We need to think that through. Is that the best way to help people
who are low income? I don't think so. I think there are much better
ways. The Wyden-Bennett framework is a better way. It rearranges the
tax deductions we have for people who have health insurance from their
employers and it says: Let's take the available money and give the
money to low-income people who then buy private health insurance. It
may be a very basic plan. But at least they would have health
insurance, and they wouldn't be stuffed in a government program 40
percent of the doctors wouldn't see and that many of the best clinics
and hospitals wouldn't allow them to come in.
We have been told already by the Congressional Budget Office that
proposal would not add a penny to the debt. Not only does it not create
a new government program, it actually makes the Medicaid Program,
except for Americans with Disabilities, history. In other words, if you
are poor, you are not stuffed into a program that nobody else would
want to join anyway. You have a chance to buy your own insurance, and
you are not consigned to the worst run government program we have
today.
So there are some real possibilities with health care, and there are
some plans on the table that will lead us in the right direction. We
have advice from distinguished Americans with a stake in this--which is
every single one of us--but the most distinguished are those who deal
with it every day. The Mayo Clinic is saying the proposed legislation
misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable

[[Page 18407]]

health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.
Shouldn't we slow down and get it right? Shouldn't we get it right?
This is the only chance we have to do this. If we do it wrong, we will
not be able to undo it. This is 16, 18 percent of the American economy
we are talking about. People have tried to do it for 60 years, and they
failed.
The only way we will do it is if we do it together. The Democrats
have big majorities over on that side. They do in the House. But that
is not the way things usually happen around here. The President has
said--and I take him at his word--and many of the leaders have said--
and I take them at their word--that we would like to get 70, 80 votes
for the health care result. We would too.
But in order to do that, we are going to have to do it the way we
usually do when we have bipartisan events around here. We get some
Democrats and some Republicans and they sit down with the President and
they share ideas and they agree on some things. They don't just say:
OK, here it is, and we are going to vote down almost every significant
idea you have on the way through.
I respect the fact that Senator Baucus is trying to do that in the
Finance Committee, and perhaps he will succeed, working with Senator
Grassley and others. But this is going to take some time. It cannot be
done overnight. There are many sections to this bill. Each of them
might be 500 pages long. They have enormous consequences to
individuals. That is why we have all these clinics writing and saying:
If you do it the way it looks like you are going to do it, you may
drive us out of the business of helping Medicare patients.
Do we really want to do that? Do we really want to say to 45 million
Americans who depend on Medicare: We are going to pass a bill that will
accelerate the process whereby respected clinics and the doctor you
might choose will not see you anymore because they cannot afford to
because the government will not pay them under the system we have?
So I would suggest we start over, literally, conceptually; start over
and listen to these clinics and doctors and focus on the delivery
system and focus, first, on those 250 million Americans who already
have health insurance and ask the question: Can they afford it? And,
what could we do to make it possible for those Americans to afford it?
And can we do it in a way that permits us to be able to honestly say
when we are through that those same 250 million Americans can afford
their government when we are through without adding to the debt?
Then let's look at the 46 million people who are uninsured. Of
course, we need for them to be insured. But the fact is, 11 million of
the uninsured are already eligible for programs we already have; 10
million or so are noncitizens--half of them legally here, half of them
not; a large number of them are making $75,000 a year and could afford
it but just do not buy it; and another significant number are college
students.
So we are going to have to go step by step by step and see in what
low-cost way we can include a large number of these 46 million
Americans, who are not part of the system, in the system. But that is
the wrong place to start. That is the place to end.
So, Mr. President, all I am saying is, on the Republican side of the
aisle we can tell you what we are for. Some of us are for the Wyden-
Bennett bill with our Democratic colleagues. That is the only
bipartisan bill before us today. It has not even been seriously
considered by this body, but it is there, and it has significant
support in the House. We have two doctors over here: Dr. Barrasso, who
has been an orthopedic surgeon for 25 years, and Dr. Coburn from
Oklahoma, an OB/GYN doctor. They would like to be involved in the
process. So far their ideas are not really being adopted in the result
we might have. We have Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, one of the
most respected Senators, who has been a part of many bipartisan
efforts, and he has his own bill. He would like to be more a part of
it, but his ideas do not fit the way things are going. But the way
things are going are too expensive for the Congressional Budget Office
and take us in the wrong direction, according to the Mayo Clinic.
So maybe we ought to step back and say: Well, let's listen to these
other ideas. Let's go very carefully. Let's work with the President.
Let's see if we can get a result. Let's keep a four-letter word out
there that is a good word; and that is ``cost,'' and make sure we focus
first on the 250 million Americans who have health insurance and make
sure they can afford it; and, second, make sure when we finish fixing
health care that those same Americans can afford their government.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

July 16, 2009.
Hon. Ron Kind,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Kind: On behalf of some of the nation's
leaders in health care delivery, we write to you today to
comment on the House health care reform bill introduced
earlier this week. We would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this legislation. We applaud the
Congress for its commitment to passing comprehensive health
care delivery system reform this year. However, we have
significant concerns about the current language of the bill
and we ask that these concerns, set forth below, be addressed
before the committee action is concluded.

Medicare-like Public Plan

First, we are concerned that a public plan option with
rates based on Medicare rates will have a severe negative
impact on our facilities. Today, many providers suffer great
financial losses associated with treating Medicare patients.
For example, several of the systems that have signed onto
this letter lost hundreds of millions of dollars under
Medicare last year. These rates are making it increasingly
difficult for us to continue to treat Medicare patients. The
implementation of a public plan with similar rates will
create a financial result that will be unsustainable for even
the nation's most efficient, high quality providers,
eventually driving them out of the market. In addition,
should a public plan with inadequate rates be enacted, we
will be forced to shift additional costs to private payers,
which will ultimately lead to increased costs for employers
who maintain insurance for their employees. We believe all
Americans must have guaranteed portable health insurance, but
it is critical that we not lose sight of the need to ensure
adequate and equitable reimbursement.

Geographic Payment Disparities

Second, our health care systems are among the most cost-
efficient in the country in caring for Medicare patients.
However, many of us operate in states with some of the lowest
Medicare reimbursement rates in the nation. Current physician
payments due to geographic disparities are actually greater
under Medicare than under commercial insurance. This may be
difficult to believe, given the government's rate-setting
power, but flows from the fundamentally flawed payment
methodology. To date, health care reform proposals simply
continue the current payment methodology, despite the fact
that formula changes have been identified to address this
problem. We support payment changes that work to reduce
geographic disparities, rather than perpetuating the flaws in
the current payment system. While we believe that the
Institute of Medicine study is a good first step, we
encourage Congress to take this further and enact payment
reforms that will address the existing disparities.

Value Index Proposal

Third, consistent with statements from President Obama, we
believe that focusing on, defining, measuring, and paying for
value is essential for controlling cost within the U.S.
health care system. The system must be reformed to compensate
for value instead of volume. We believe inserting a value
index into various aspects of the Medicare payment system
(e.g., physician fee schedule, hospital rates) is the means
to accomplish this end goal of compensating for quality
rather than quantity.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this
legislation. We urge you to address the above-stated
concerns, which will demonstrate that Congress is serious
about preserving the best parts of the existing health care
delivery system. If we can be of assistance to you moving
forward, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Everett Clinic, Gundersen Lutheran Health System,
HealthPartners, Intermountain Healthcare, Iowa Clinic,
Marshfield Clinic, Mayo Clinic.
MeritCare Health System, Park Nicollet Health System,
Rural Wisconsin Health Cooperative, ThedaCare,
Wisconsin Hospital Association, Wisconsin Medical
Society.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from
Illinois.

[[Page 18408]]

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, throughout this Nation's history, our
freedom--and at times our very survival--has rested squarely on the
shoulders of the men and women of our Armed Forces.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am proud to know many
of these brave warfighters we have. We rely upon their training and
discipline. We depend upon their service and their sacrifice. In
return, we owe them nothing but the very best.
That means keeping our commitment to every soldier, sailor, airman,
and marine at every stage in their career--from the day they report for
training to the day they retire and beyond.
We can start to honor this commitment in the most basic way by
ensuring that their facilities are safe and adequate. That is why I
plan to offer an amendment that would help eliminate vegetative
encroachment on training ranges. Excessive vegetation can actually
render training grounds unusable. If a training range is heavily
overgrown, it can lead to dangerous situations, including fires and
obstructive lines of sight.
In a recent study by the U.S. Army, 70 percent of the facilities
surveyed are experiencing limitations due to uncontrolled vegetation.
This is unacceptable. We must take action now.
My amendment calls upon the Secretary of Defense to perform a
comprehensive study of training ranges across every branch of the
military. We must develop a plan to reclaim any overgrown land for its
rightful use by our fighting men and women of America. This will help
us ensure that we can train them adequately and safely so they can
fully prepare for any mission they are assigned to perform.
But we cannot stop there. Our commitment begins on the day someone
volunteers for service in the Armed Forces. But it does not end, even
after their service has drawn to a close. That is why I believe it is
important to extend dislocation benefits to every servicemember,
including those whose service is coming to an end.
Over the course of a career in the American military, a service man
or woman and their family may be ordered to relocate a number of
times--moving here, moving there, this assignment, that assignment.
Each move can be quite costly. From basic travel expenses to the
purchase of household goods to utilities to rent, it takes a lot to
relocate an entire family.
Since 1955, Congress has helped members of the service defray these
costs by paying a ``dislocation allowance'' to each person we reassign
to a new duty station. This eases the financial burden on military
families and means that personnel decisions can be made without fear of
breaking the bank--at least for most servicemembers, that is.
Unfortunately, those who retire are not covered under the current
system, despite the fact that their final orders may require a
permanent change of station. So after years of supporting service men
and women when we ask them to relocate, we abandon them at the time of
their final move. We leave them to fend for themselves, even though the
expenses they incur will be as high as ever, and even though their
income has been reduced to half of what they had been paid during
Active Duty.
So we simply cannot stand for this. We cannot allow those who have
served us honorably to be left out in the cold at the end of their
careers. We must offer these benefits to all Members of our Armed
Forces, even those who have been asked to move for the last time.
That is why I am calling for a study to examine the feasibility of
extending the dislocation allowance to retiring servicemembers. We
should find a way to make this work. The cost of moving demands it. Our
servicemembers support it. And, most importantly, it is the right thing
to do for our troops.
Colleagues, Members of this great body, let's come together to stand
for those who sacrifice on our behalf and protect this great country of
ours that allows us to do what we do in America, with freedom and
opportunity. Let's provide our men and women in uniform with the
support they need at every stage of their careers--from the first day
of basic training to the day they are discharged.
Cutting down on vegetation encroachment will keep our trainees safe
and help prepare them for years of honorable service. When that service
ends, dislocation benefits will help them retire with some measure of
financial security.
So I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting these
initiatives I put forth. We owe our troops nothing less.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. 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. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a few minutes about
health care and the need for health care reform in the country today. I
think most Americans would agree we need to do everything we can to
make affordable health insurance available to every American and,
hopefully, that is what this health reform debate will be about.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern develop here that has been
going on all year--since the President took office--that has many
Americans alarmed at the rapid pace we are spending and borrowing,
imposing new taxes, and taking over various aspects of the American
economy. I know a lot of Americans are alarmed and some are outraged.
More than any other comment, I am hearing Americans say: Why don't you
slow down and read the bills before you continue the expansion of
government.
Now we are talking about health care, and we see that same pattern of
crisis and rush and it ``has to be done today, hair's on fire'' type of
mentality here in Washington so that we almost have to call this a
``son of stimulus'' health care bill. Because certainly the last time
the President tried to ram a massive bill through Congress before we
had a chance to read it, we ended up with this colossal stimulus
failure that has actually resulted in the loss of jobs in America and a
burden of debt on our children that is almost unimaginable. It makes no
sense for us to follow that same pattern with health care--nearly 20
percent of our economy--to have a government takeover with a bill we
haven't even completely seen yet, that is supposed to be passed in the
next 2 weeks, even though the bill wouldn't take effect until 2013.
What is the rush? The whole purpose of the Senate is to be the place
where the legislation comes to cool down, where we deliberate, we look
at the details. The President himself has admitted he is not aware of
the details of the bill he is out selling every day.
We do have serious problems in health care that we need to fix. The
unfortunate thing is I have no confidence that the President actually
wants to make health insurance affordable and available to all
Americans because when he was in the Senate, Republicans proposed a
number of alternatives that would have done that. Yet in every case--
every opportunity he had to make health insurance more available and
affordable to Americans--he voted no. Let's review some of them,
because I think we have to recognize that the point of this health care
debate is not to make sure every American is insured, but to make sure
the government is running our health care system. The most personal and
private part of our lives they are talking about turning over to
bureaucrats at the Federal level. This makes no sense.
What we could do is be fair to those who don't get their health
insurance at

[[Page 18409]]

work. If people get their health insurance at work, as we do here in
Congress, your employer can deduct the cost of it and the employee is
exempt from paying taxes on those benefits. That is equivalent to about
a $5,000 a year benefit to families who get their health care or health
insurance at work. Why can't we offer that same fairness to Americans
who don't get their health insurance at work? It is something I
actually proposed here in the Senate while President Obama was a
Senator, that we would give fair tax treatment; at least let them
deduct it from their taxes. He voted no, as did I believe every
Democrat, and they killed the bill in the House. This was basic
fairness to make health insurance a little more affordable to people
who didn't get it at work. The President voted no.
We hear a lot of talk about how we need a government plan to make the
private plans more competitive. Why not make all the insurance
companies compete with insurance companies all over the country instead
of what we do now? A lot of Americans don't know that the reason we
don't have a competitive private health insurance market is that the
Federal Government makes it impossible. You have to buy your health
insurance in the State where you live, so a few insurance companies
basically have monopolies in every State of the country. What if
someone such as myself who lived in South Carolina could look all
across the country, find a policy I wanted at a better price, and buy
it? Why can't we do that? Well, I proposed we do that. We introduced it
on the Senate floor. It would have created a competitive health
insurance market and allowed people to buy all over the country. Barack
Obama voted no, as did all of the Democrats, to kill the bill. Now they
are talking about: Well, we need a government option to create some
competition, to have a real competitive market. He voted against it.
What about allowing Americans who put money in a health savings
account, or their employer puts it in there for them--their own money--
why not let them use that money to pay for a health insurance premium
if they don't get it at work? It sounded like a good idea to me, to
make it a little bit easier, a little more affordable to have your own
health insurance, so I proposed that bill here in the Senate. Barack
Obama voted no, as did all of the Democrats, and they killed the bill.
What about the idea of allowing a lot of small employers--I was a
small businessman for years. It was hard to buy health insurance as a
small employer, but I did. It cost me a lot of money, a lot more than
the big employers. But what about allowing a lot of small employers to
come together and form associations and buy health insurance so they
could offer it to their employees less expensively? Well, it is a good
idea that was offered right here on the floor of the Senate by
Republicans. Barack Obama voted no, as did most of the Democrats, and
they killed the bill.
There is a long list here I could go through, but every single bill,
every single health reform idea that has been proposed here, the
President, when he was in the Senate, voted against. Everything that
would have made health insurance available and affordable to the
average American who doesn't get their insurance at work was voted no
by this President.
Now he is saying, We need the government to take it over because it
is not working. The reason it is not working is we won't let it work.
The part of health insurance, the health care system that works the
best today is when you have your own health insurance and you pick your
own doctor and you and your doctor decide what kind of health care you
are going to get. It is not a perfect system, and insurance companies
have a lot of work to do to make things work better because I have to
argue with them a lot myself. But the part of the health care system
that doesn't work is the part that the government runs, Medicaid and
Medicare, the SCHIP and TRICARE. Some of the people who get those
benefits such as our seniors say Medicare works fine, but,
unfortunately, doctors don't want to see them coming because Medicare
and Medicaid don't cover the cost of even seeing a patient. So many
physicians are closing their practices to our seniors because they have
government health insurance. Government health care does not pay enough
for the physician and the hospital to see the patient, so they shift
the cost over to the private market.
The worst part of all of these government plans is they are trillions
of dollars in debt--debt that our children are going to have to pay
back. These programs are broke. Yet they want to expand these programs.
They want to take the part of health care that is not working and
essentially force it on every American. They want every American to
have a Medicaid plan where doctors don't want to see us coming because
we are not paying enough of their costs.
As I look at this whole health care reform debate--and I am glad to
see the President out taking shots at me for saying we have to stop him
on this, because we have been on a rampage since he took office,
passing one government program after another, expanding spending and
debt at levels we have never imagined in this country. It is time to
slow down and take stock of where we are. Other countries that have to
lend us money to keep us going are beginning to wonder, Can we pay our
debts? We have doubled our money supply by the Federal Reserve, and
that means big inflation, higher interest rates. Yet we are moving
ahead with this health care plan that is going to expand our debt as a
nation, raise taxes on small businesses that create the jobs. It looks
as if we are going to penalize Americans who don't decide to buy health
insurance, and we are moving again toward a government program that we
know won't work. There is not one Federal program that has worked as
advertised, that has worked to the budget we said it would be to. This
week we have had announcements of what we have already passed as far as
stimulus over the last year is going to mean trillions of dollars--
trillions of dollars--we are going to have to borrow and that our
children are going to have to pay back.
I appeal to my colleagues: We don't need to rush through a bill in
the next 2 weeks before we go on our August break that affects one-
fifth--20 percent--of our total economy, that gets the government to
effectively take over the most personal and private service that we ask
for as Americans. We don't need to pass a bill such as that, that we
won't even have time to read. What the President and I think a lot of
the proponents of this bill are afraid of is if we are able to go home
on the August break and we take this bill and we put it on the Internet
where people can read it, and radio talk shows and bloggers all around
the country are able to tell the American people what this bill is and
what it will do, and get past this utopian rhetoric that we are hearing
from the President and look at the nuts and bolts, because everything
he is saying this bill is going to do the Congressional Budget Office
and other experts are saying, No, it isn't going to work that way. It
isn't going to save us money, it is going to raise our taxes, it is
going to cost jobs in America, and it isn't going to fix health care.
We need to go back to the basics, including some of what I have
mentioned already, that would reform health care and make private
health insurance work better, make it more affordable, and get it into
the hands of more Americans. Why should we give up on freedom and move
to a government plan when we haven't even given freedom a chance to
work in health care?
I know the government can't run health care and I don't want them
running my plan. One of the best ideas I have heard in this debate is
whatever we pass, Congressmen and Senators ought to have to take that
health plan. I am going to have an amendment to that effect if they try
to get this on the floor before August.
But I appeal to my colleagues: Let's listen to the American people.
Let's stop this rampage toward bigger and bigger government. Let's take
our time and look at this bill and, for once, do something right. Our
health depends on it.

[[Page 18410]]

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.

Amendment No. 1515

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
the pending amendment be laid aside in order that I might call up
amendment No. 1515.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment
numbered 1515.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To repeal the requirement for reduction of survivor annuities
under the Survivor Benefit Plan by veterans' dependency and indemnity
compensation)

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. ___. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT OF REDUCTION OF SBP SURVIVOR
ANNUITIES BY DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY
COMPENSATION.

(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450, by striking subsection (c).
(B) In section 1451(c)--
(i) by striking paragraph (2); and
(ii) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs
(2) and (3), respectively.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Such subchapter is further
amended as follows:
(A) In section 1450--
(i) by striking subsection (e);
(ii) by striking subsection (k); and
(iii) by striking subsection (m).
(B) In section 1451(g)(1), by striking subparagraph (C).
(C) In section 1452--
(i) in subsection (f)(2), by striking ``does not apply--''
and all that follows and inserting ``does not apply in the
case of a deduction made through administrative error.''; and
(ii) by striking subsection (g).
(D) In section 1455(c), by striking ``, 1450(k)(2),''.
(b) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may
be paid to any person for any period before the effective
date provided under subsection (f) by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a).
(c) Prohibition on Recoupment of Certain Amounts Previously
Refunded to SBP Recipients.--A surviving spouse who is or has
been in receipt of an annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan
under subchapter II of chapter 73 of title 10, United States
Code, that is in effect before the effective date provided
under subsection (f) and that is adjusted by reason of the
amendments made by subsection (a) and who has received a
refund of retired pay under section 1450(e) of title 10,
United States Code, shall not be required to repay such
refund to the United States.
(d) Repeal of Authority for Optional Annuity for Dependent
Children.--Section 1448(d) of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Except as provided in
paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary concerned'' and inserting
``The Secretary concerned''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``Dependent children.--'' and all that
follows through ``In the case of a member described in
paragraph (1),'' and inserting ``Dependent children annuity
when no eligible surviving spouse.--In the case of a member
described in paragraph (1),''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (B).
(e) Restoration of Eligibility for Previously Eligible
Spouses.--The Secretary of the military department concerned
shall restore annuity eligibility to any eligible surviving
spouse who, in consultation with the Secretary, previously
elected to transfer payment of such annuity to a surviving
child or children under the provisions of section
1448(d)(2)(B) of title 10, United States Code, as in effect
on the day before the effective date provided under
subsection (f). Such eligibility shall be restored whether or
not payment to such child or children subsequently was
terminated due to loss of dependent status or death. For the
purposes of this subsection, an eligible spouse includes a
spouse who was previously eligible for payment of such
annuity and is not remarried, or remarried after having
attained age 55, or whose second or subsequent marriage has
been terminated by death, divorce or annulment.
(f) Effective Date.--The sections and the amendments made
by this section shall take effect on the later of--
(1) the first day of the first month that begins after the
date of the enactment of this Act; or
(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the
calendar year in which this Act is enacted.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is the widows and orphans
amendment. This is the dastardly subject we have been dealing with for
years, where there is an offset from an insurance payout, that
servicemembers pay insurance premiums and/or retirees pay premiums,
which is offset by Veterans Department disability compensation, which
otherwise the veteran's surviving spouse and children would be able to,
under existing law, be eligible for both, but there is an offset.
This particular amendment is going to eliminate that offset. Every
year, we come to the floor on the Defense authorization bill and we
offer the amendment and we have an overwhelming vote in the Senate.
Every year, it goes to conference and, for years and years, in the
conference committee with the House, they would say you cannot pass an
amendment that would even reduce the offset for widows and orphans.
Only in the last couple years have we had some modest reduction of the
offset. Then, on an earlier piece of legislation this year, we had a
little bit more reduction of the offset. What this amendment will do is
completely eliminate the offset.
I wish to point out at the outset, I have a letter from the Military
Coalition, and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The Military Coalition,

Alexandria, VA, July 15, 2009.
Hon. Bill Nelson,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Nelson: The Military Coalition (TMC), a
consortium of nationally prominent military and veterans
organizations, representing more 5.5 million members plus
their families and survivors would like to thank you for your
sponsoring of Amendment No. 1515 of FY2010 NDAA (S. 1390).
This Amendment, like your bill, S. 535, would repeal the law
requiring a dollar-for-dollar deduction of VA benefits for
service connected deaths from the survivors' SBP annuities.
The elimination of this survivor benefit inequity is a top
legislative goal for TMC in 2009.
We strongly believe that if military service caused a
member's death, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
(DIC) the VA pays the survivor should be added to the SBP
benefits the disabled retiree paid for, not substituted for
them. In the case of members who died on active duty, a
surviving spouse with children can avoid the dollar-for-
dollar offset only by assigning SBP to the children. That
forces the spouse to give up any SBP claim after the children
attain their majority--leaving the spouse with only a $1,154
monthly annuity from the VA. Those who give their lives for
their country deserve fairer compensation for their surviving
spouses. Your amendment would also end this inequity.
The Military Coalition again thanks you for sponsoring this
Amendment to restore equity to this very important survivor
program and encourages your colleagues vote for its passage.
Sincerely,
The Military Coalition:

Air Force Association, Air Force Sergeants Association, Air
Force Women Officers Associated, American Logistics
Association, AMVETS, Army Aviation Assn. of America, Assn. of
Military Surgeons of the United States, Assn. of the US Army,
Association of the United States Navy, Commissioned Officers
Assn. of the US Public Health Service, Inc. CWO & WO Assn. US
Coast Guard, Enlisted Association of the National Guard of
the US, Fleet Reserve Assn., Gold Star Wives of America,
Inc., Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War
Veterans of the USA, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps
Reserve Association, Military Officers Assn. of America,
Military Order of the Purple Heart, National Association for
Uniformed Services, National Guard Assn. of the US, National
Military Family Assn., National Order of Battlefield
Commissions, Naval Enlisted Reserve Assn., Non Commissioned
Officers Assn. of the United States of America, Reserve
Enlisted Assn. of the US, Reserve Officers Assn., Society of
Medical Consultants to the Armed Forces, The Military
Chaplains Assn. of the USA, The Retired Enlisted Assn., USCG
Chief Petty Officers Assn., US Army Warrant Officers Assn.,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the US.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. This letter supports this legislation. It is
from the Military Coalition. The Military Coalition is a group of 34
organizations, and their signatures are on the letter--alphabetically,
from the Air Force Association all the way to the last one on

[[Page 18411]]

the list of 34, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. All
those organizations that you would expect are in between; there are 34
of them endorsing this amendment.
I wish to tell you about this particular amendment. I filed this
bill--and this is nonpartisan--years ago with Senator Sessions and
eight other original cosponsors. It will repeal the law that takes
almost $1,200 per month from families who have lost a loved one because
of military service. This survivors benefit plan, otherwise known by
its initials as SBP, is an annuity paid by the Defense Department.
Survivors receive the benefit when either a military retiree pays a
premium as income insurance for their survivors or when a servicemember
dies on Active Duty.
The other law is dependency and indemnity compensation, referred to
by its initials DIC. It is a survivor benefit paid by the Veterans'
Administration. Survivors receive this benefit when the military
service caused the servicemember's death.
What this amendment will do is fix this longstanding problem in the
military survivor benefits system. The problem is, it requires a
dollar-for-dollar reduction of the survivor benefits from the SBP, paid
by the Department of Defense, offsetting against the dependents and
indemnity compensation, DIC, paid by the Veterans' Administration.
You know the great quote, following one of America's bloodiest wars,
by President Lincoln in his second inaugural address--and the war was
still raging at that point. He said that one of the greatest
obligations in war is to ``finish the work we are in; to bind up the
Nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle''--in
other words, the veterans--``and for his widow and his orphan.''
Following Lincoln's advice to honor truly our servicemembers, they
need to know their widows and orphans, their survivors, will be taken
care of. We certainly agree that the U.S. Government must take care of
our veterans, their widows, and their orphans. In keeping with that
principle, we need to repeal this offset that denies the widows and
orphans the annuity their deceased loved ones have earned on Active
Duty or have purchased for them. A retired military member can purchase
this SBP, and it is an insurance policy so their survivors will have
income.
Over in the Veterans' Administration, we have a law that says, if you
are disabled a certain percentage, we are going to take care of you.
One should not offset the other--particularly, when somebody has paid
premiums on an insurance policy.
Well, that dollar-for-dollar offset is what has me so agitated for a
decade now. I have already explained that, for the survivors benefit
plan, there are two ways to qualify: The military retiree goes out and
voluntarily pays into an insurance program with their retirement
income. Later, the statute was added that the survivors benefit plan is
available to an Active-Duty servicemember if they are killed as a
result of military service. For retirees, the SBP is an insurance
program that protects the income of survivors; and for Active-Duty
military members, SBP is compensation for the servicemembers'
beneficiaries.
On the other hand, the dependents indemnity compensation is a benefit
payment to the survivors of a servicemember who dies from a service-
connected condition. For almost a decade, I have fought to repeal the
law that requires the dollar-for-dollar offset of these two very
different benefits. Back in 2005, the Senate took the step in the right
direction and passed, by a vote of 92 to 6, my amendment to repeal that
offset. When it got down to the conference committee, you know what
happened. In the 2008 Defense authorization bill, we cracked the door
to eliminating the offset. In the conference committee negotiations
with the House, we made some progress when we got a special payment of
$50 per month, which would now increase to $310 per month by 2017
because of money savings found in the tobacco legislation passed
earlier this year.
Our efforts have been important steps in the right direction, but
they are not enough. We must meet our obligation to the widows and
orphans with the same sense of honor as was the service their loved
ones had performed. We need to completely offset this SBP and DIC. We
must continue to work to do right by all those who have given this
Nation their all and especially for the loved ones they may leave to
our care.
In that letter that I have had entered into the Record, it says:

The elimination of this survivor benefit inequity is the
top legislative goal for [the Military Coalition] in 2009.

I will not take the time to read the names of the 34 organizations
that signed the letter, but they are all fairly well known to every one
of us.
On February 24 of this year, during a joint session of the Congress,
the President said:

To keep our sacred trust with those who serve, we will
raise their pay, and give our veterans the expanded health
care and benefits they have earned.

I say amen to that. I ask that President Obama help us end this
injustice to widows and orphans of our Nation's heroes.
Mr. President, may I inquire if there is someone else who wants to
speak now, because if there would not be, I would like to speak as in
morning business.
Mr. McCAIN. I object. Let's dispose of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona objects.
Mr. McCAIN. I object to the Senator from Florida going into morning
business until we dispose of the amendment. Then he can do it right
away.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I merely inquired if another Senator wants to
speak. Certainly, I would withhold asking for a unanimous consent.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I intend to speak on the Thune amendment
and was scheduled to speak in the next few minutes. If it is OK with
the floor leaders, if my colleague will speak for a brief amount of
time, I am happy to go after him. It is up to the floor managers.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Florida, we will
find out if there are others who want to speak on his amendment. If
not, we are in favor of disposing of his amendment. Part of the
agreement we made, in order for us to proceed, was that if anyone came
to the floor to speak on the pending amendment, that Senator would have
priority. If it is agreeable to the Senator from Florida, the Senator
from New York would go ahead and then we could go back to him speaking
in morning business.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Of course. It is my understanding the Senator
from South Carolina had just spoken as in morning business. That is why
I was inquiring. I am very grateful to the ranking member of the
committee for us to go ahead and dispose of this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Why don't we wait until after the Senator from New York
finishes, to make sure there is no one else who wants to speak on the
amendment of the Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, if my colleague needs 5 minutes, I am
happy to yield to him, if I would come after that. I ask unanimous
consent that be the case.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. NELSON of Florida pertaining to the introduction
of S. 1484, S. 1485, S. 1486, and S. 1487 are located in today's Record
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. REED. Mr. President, if the Senator from Florida is prepared, I
have conferred with the ranking member, the Senator from Arizona, and
we are prepared to voice vote the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

[[Page 18412]]

If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1515) was agreed to.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote,
and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Amendment No. 1618

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I know we are not now on the Thune
amendment. I know we have gone aside to other amendments and that we
will be debating Thune tomorrow morning, but there are so many of my
colleagues who want to speak, and I have a lot to say. So I will speak
for 5 minutes tomorrow morning, but I will give the bulk of my speech
this afternoon.
Mr. President, I rise in staunch opposition to the Thune amendment. I
believe it is a dangerous amendment that would go far beyond
authorizing gun possession for self-defense and not only create a
serious threat to public safety but also severely undercut American
federalism.
Amendment No. 1618, authored by Senator Thune, would force States and
localities from across the Nation to permit individuals from other
States to carry hidden and loaded handguns in public, even where the
elected representatives of those States have chosen to bar these
persons from possessing firearms. The legislation would require every
State with concealed carry legislation to honor concealed carry
licenses issued by any other State so long as they abide by the State's
location restrictions for concealed carry.
This amendment is a bridge too far and could endanger the safety of
millions of Americans. Each State has carefully crafted its concealed
carry laws in the way that makes the most sense to protect its
citizens. It is obvious what is good for the safety of people in New
York City or Philadelphia or Chicago or Miami or Los Angeles is not the
same thing that is needed in rural Idaho or rural Tennessee. Yet this
amendment, in one fell swoop, says the protections some States feel
they need to protect law enforcement, to protect its citizenry, would
be wiped away.
The amendment will incite the dangerous race to the bottom in our
Nation's gun laws. Let's examine the lineup of people who could carry
concealed weapons in 48 States under this amendment. And I don't
disparage each State for doing what it wants within its own borders,
but why impose that on States outside their borders?
Arizona law allows a concealed carry permit to be issued to an
applicant who is a known alcoholic. So alcoholics would be in the
lineup. They could carry a concealed weapon in States outside of
Arizona simply because Arizona allowed them to do so.
Texas, which is one of the top 10 sources of guns recovered in crimes
in New York City, a city in which I reside, is obliged to issue a
permit to a person who has been convicted repeatedly of illegally
carrying a handgun. Therefore, we can place arms traffickers in this
lineup.
Mississippi law leaves access to concealed carry permits for members
of hate groups.
Alaska and Vermont allow adult residents of their States to carry a
concealed weapon without a license or background check as long as they
are allowed to possess a gun, even if they have committed violent
misdemeanors, have committed misdemeanor sex offenses against minors or
are dangerously mentally ill and have been voluntarily committed to a
mental institution.
Again, each State has its own views. The State of Vermont is a
beautiful State. It is different from New York State in many ways, and
the laws that fit for Vermont don't necessarily fit for New York.
A 17-year-old Crip or Blood from New York--a member of a gang;
dangerous, maybe violent--could head to Vermont, obtain a Vermont
driver's license, buy a gun, and return to New York or he could buy a
whole bunch of guns and return to New York. When law enforcement stops
him, a loaded gun tucked in his pants or a whole bunch of guns in his
backpack, all he would have to do is claim he is a Vermonter visiting
New York, show his Vermont ID, and the New York Police Department would
be unable to stop him. This runs shivers down the spines of New York
police officers, of New York sheriffs, of New York law enforcement. And
it doesn't just apply to New York. This could apply to any large State.
Imagine law enforcement stopping one of these characters with a
backpack full of guns--a known member of a major gang--and having to
let them go. Imagine how empowered gun smugglers and traffickers would
feel. Their business would boom. These are people who make money by
selling guns illegally to people who are convicted felons. They could
go to the State with the weakest laws, get a concealed carry permit--if
that State allowed it, and in all likelihood it might--and then start
bringing concealed guns into neighboring States and States across the
country. Their business would boom, but our safety would be impaired.
Imagine routine traffic stops turned into potential shootouts.
Police officers in New York have the safety and the peace of mind in
knowing that the only people who might legally have a gun are those who
have been approved by the police department. That is how we do it in a
city such as New York. We have had our problems with crime. Thank God
it is much lower now, due to the great work of the New York City
police. But now they would be totally unprepared, walking on tiptoe.
And if the criminal simply said: I am from this State--wow. I shudder
at the thought.
Beyond the very real threat this poses to law enforcement and the
safety of our police officers and the safety of our citizens, it would
create a logistical nightmare. A police officer making a stop of a car
would have to have in front of him or her the laws of all 45 States
that now allow or whose residents would now be allowed or even whose
people had gotten carry permits who would now be allowed to carry
concealed weapons in New York.
What about States rights? I have not been on the side--it is
obvious--of the gun lobby for as many years as I have been here in the
House and Senate. I have always believed, though, there is a right to
bear arms and that it is unfair to say the second amendment should be
seen through a pinhole and the first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth amendments should be seen broadly. I don't think
that is fair.
But every amendment has limitations. Through the years when I have
been involved in this issue, the NRA and other gun groups have argued,
frankly, that the States ought to make their own decisions. All of a
sudden we see a 180-degree hairpin turn. Now they are saying that the
States cannot make their own decisions. Why is it that every other
issue should be resolved by the States except this one? The amendment
flies in the very face of States rights arguments and takes away
citizens' rights to govern themselves.
I say to my colleagues who have laws and citizenry who probably want
the laws not drawn as tightly as my State, if you open up this door,
one day you will regret it. Because if you say that the Federal
Government should decide what law governs, you are taking away States'
right to govern themselves.
In the 1990s, after the passage of the Brady Act, the National Rifle
Association funded multiple legal challenges to it, citing the 10th
amendment, that the right to bear arms therefore resided in the States.
Indeed, Mary Sue Falkner, who was then a spokesman for the NRA, said at
the time:

This is not a case about firearms per se, but about whether
the Federal Government can force States and local governments
against their will to carry out Federal mandates.

Similarly, in reference to Brady, the NRA's chief lobbyist said that
the Federal Government was getting too much involved in State affairs.
The gun lobby's rallying cry has always been, ``Let each State
decide.'' But with this amendment, again, a 180-degree flip.

[[Page 18413]]

Clearly, large urban areas merit a different standard than rural
areas. To gut the ability of local police and sheriffs to determine who
should be able to carry a concealed weapon makes no sense. It is wrong
to take away any State's rights to make decisions about what can make a
resident safer. A one-size-fits-all approach to community safety leads
us down a very precarious road.
Make no mistake, this is a serious amendment. It is, even though not
the intention of the author, a dangerous amendment. There will be
needless suffering, injuries, and deaths if this amendment is agreed
to.
I talked to my colleague Senator Thune. We are friends. We saw each
other in the gym this morning. He said to me: What about truckdrivers
who have the gun in the cab of their truck and ride across State lines?
I am sympathetic to that. I supported laws that allow police officers
in New York to carry their gun when they cross over into New Jersey to
shop or whatever. But you do not need this law to deal with that
problem, because it creates so many other issues. There are ways we can
deal with the problem that the Senator from South Dakota brought up to
me in the gym this morning, without decimating State laws that protect
individual safety.
Make no mistake about it, this amendment would affect every State in
the country, but I do not see the Governors on board. It would affect
every city in the country. I don't see the mayors on board. It would
affect every county in the country, but I don't see the sheriffs on
board. It would affect every town in the country, but I don't see
police chiefs on board.
Before we rush to judgment, shouldn't we ask our Governors, our
mayors, our sheriffs, our police chiefs if this will make our
communities safer or less safe? If this will put the men and women, the
brave men and women who defend us and protect us on police forces, in
jeopardy? Why don't we seek their guidance?
I urge my colleagues to give thoughtful and careful consideration to
the consequences of the Thune amendment. I believe if they do, they
will vote against it tomorrow at noon.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Health Care Reform

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as we meet here today we are discussing
the Defense authorization bill. We debate it each year. It is basically
an authorization for the expenditure of funds in defense of America. It
is a significant bill with a lot of different parts. I commend the
Senators who have brought this to the floor, Senator Carl Levin, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and his Republican
counterpart, Senator John McCain.
I know this bill is important and I know we will be returning to
substantive amendments on this bill very shortly. But while we have
this break in the action, I want to address another issue which is
being debated in almost every corridor on Capitol Hill, and that is the
issue of health care reform. It is an interesting issue and an amazing
challenge to this Congress, to try to grapple with the health care
system in the most prosperous Nation on Earth.
Despite our prosperity, we know there is something fundamentally
flawed with our health care system. We spend more than twice as much
per person in America on health care as any other country, and the
results do not show that money is being well spent. Many other
countries, spending a fraction of what the United States spends, end up
with very different and much better results in terms of survival from
certain diseases and illness, and mortality rates. There is something
to be learned here about how we can be more effective in providing
health care for our citizens and not break the bank.
Most Americans know what I am talking about when I talk about cost,
because they are facing cost issues every day. They know health
insurance premiums in America in the last several years have gone up
three times faster than the incomes and wages of Americans. We have
learned it is not unusual for one-fourth of Americans to spend 1 out of
every $10 in income for health insurance. Some, a smaller group but a
significant group, spend up to $1 out of every $4 in income on health
insurance. The number keeps going through the roof with no end in
sight. It worries us, not just as individuals and members of families,
but businesses that are trying to do the right thing for their
employees and be competitive.
It worries units of government because, whether it is your State
government providing assistance for Medicaid or whether it is the
Federal Government concerned about Medicare and Medicaid, the costs of
health care are growing so quickly that they could easily put us into a
perpetual debt situation, something we do not want to see, something we
cannot leave to our children.
Now we are debating in the House and in the Senate, in a variety of
different committees, how to change this health care system. Needless
to say, it is a contentious debate. There are a lot of different points
of view. There are some people and companies in America that want no
change in our health care system. Most people do. Some don't. Many of
those who are resisting change, who are unwilling to support the
President's efforts to move us in this direction, are the very same
companies and people who are profiting from the current system.
Make no mistake, when you spend billions of dollars on a system, much
more than any other country, you are going to end up in a situation
where many people are profiting handsomely from the current system.
When you talk about reform--reducing the cost, reducing the payments,
being more cost effective--these people see money going out the window,
and they are going to fight it.
That is what the battle is all about. We have been through it before,
and now we have returned to it. But in addition to cost, there is also
the issue of the availability of health insurance. This morning's
Chicago Tribune, on the front page, told the story of a man who sadly
is one of the victims of this situation. He lives in a suburb of
Chicago, and he works as a doorman at one of the buildings. He had a
bad back. He finally was told--he tried a lot of conservative
treatment; it just did not work--you are going to have to have back
surgery.
So he did what he was supposed to do. He went to his insurance
company and said: The doctor is recommending a surgery, and I want to
know if it will be covered by my health insurance. Well, the health
insurance company sent back to him written confirmation that the costs
of the surgery would be covered by his health insurance. So he went
through with the surgery and ended up incurring $148,000 in medical
bills.
I think you know how this story ends. They turned in the bills to the
insurance company, and they denied them. They said: We did not really
approve this surgery. You should have taken a more conservative
approach to it.
Well, he thought he had done everything he was supposed to. What
followed was a battle with this insurance company, day after day, month
after month, while people were saying: Send us the $148,000. This man
of limited means was fighting to finally get this health insurance
company to pay what they promised to pay. It took him months.
When it was all over, Mr. Napientek, Michael Napientek, ended up with
coverage. Had he failed to get the coverage for that surgery, it would
have wiped out his entire life's savings. That is the reality of health
care. That is the situation too many people find themselves in, so
vulnerable in a situation where one medical bill denied by an insurance
company bureaucrat can literally wipe out their life's savings.

[[Page 18414]]

We can do better. We have to do better. That is what this debate is
all about. First, we have to reduce the cost of health care for
families and businesses and governments across America. There are ways
to do that. We can lower costs to make sure every American has access
to insurance. We can make it clear that no one can be turned down for
insurance coverage because of a preexisting condition. We can make
certain there is no discrimination in the premiums that are charged
individual Americans because one is a male and another female; one is a
certain age and another not. We can make certain there is more fairness
in the way people are treated by these health insurance companies.
This idea of denying coverage for preexisting conditions, imagine how
frustrating that must be to realize that if you turned in a claim this
year on your health insurance because you had a bad back, and you went
to the doctor next year, when it came time for surgery they would not
cover it.
This happened to a friend of mine, a fellow I grew up with in East
St. Louis, IL, in the trucking business. He not only owned the
business, he drove the trucks. When he reached 60 years of age, his
back was killing him. Well, at that point his company had lost its
health insurance. Why? Because the wife of one of the employees had a
sick baby. Her sick baby incurred a lot of medical bills, and the cost
of health insurance went through the roof. They had to cancel the
company's health insurance, give the employees some money, and say:
Fend for yourself.
He was in the same boat. He went out to get private health insurance,
complained about a bad back. The following year when the doctor said he
needed back surgery, he turned in a claim to his health insurance
company, and they said: No, it is a preexisting condition. We will not
cover your back surgery.
Do you know what he had to do? He ended up filing a worker's
compensation claim claiming that his back injuries had to do with
bouncing around in a truck for 30 or 40 years, not an unreasonable
conclusion. Do you know who he sued? He sued himself. He sued as an
employee of the company. He sued himself as owner of the company.
Is that crazy to reach that point? And he won, incidentally. They
said it is subject to worker's compensation. We will pay for the
surgery.
He had done everything right, providing health insurance for his
employees until he could not afford it, trying to get private insurance
for himself at the age of 60, then turning in a claim and being turned
down. He could have been wiped out by that surgery, just as the man on
the front page of the Chicago Tribune.
We are all in this vulnerable situation because the health insurance
companies have so much power over our lives. I listen to those on the
other side of the aisle who come--not all of them but many--every
single day and say we do not need to change this system. Who are they
talking to? Who are they listening to? They are not listening to people
like these who find out every day that they do not have coverage, that
the cost of insurance is too high, that their doctor is in a debate
with a clerk at an insurance company over whether they are going to get
the necessary and proper treatment for a medical condition. That is the
reality.
There are many ways to address this, and we should. We have to
address it by making sure everyone has access to health insurance
regardless of preexisting conditions, health status for a medical
condition. We have to get rid of the so-called lifetime caps.
Imagine that a diagnosis tomorrow that you or someone you love in
your family has a chronic condition that is going to call for medical
treatment for a long period of time, and then you realize there will
come a moment when that health insurance company would say: We are out
of here. You just broke the bank. You hit the cap on your policy.
We have to put an end to that. We also have to limit the out-of-
pocket expenses individuals have to pay. There comes a point where
people cannot afford this expense. We have to require equal treatment
for men and women--Black, White, and brown, young and old, whether they
live in a rural area or in a city.
We have to make sure if a health insurance policy in America is
offered, it is a good policy that covers the basic needs. There are
policies that do not. They sell health insurance you can afford, and
guess what. It is worthless. That is not good for America and it is not
good for our families.
There are ways to lower costs. We ought to be pushing for prevention.
We ought to be trying to find ways to keep people well, incentives for
the right conduct and healthy outcomes. Right now there is not much of
a reward or an incentive for wellness. We also have to give support to
small businesses. When we look at the insured in America, most of them
are small business employees and their children. The poorest people in
America are covered by Medicaid, the government health insurance, as
they should be.
Folks are fortunate, like myself, under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program, and most others who have health insurance policies,
to have coverage. But the folks in the middle who get up and go to work
every day for the small businesses of America--and their kids--are the
ones who do not have coverage. We can do better.
One of the proposals before us in Congress is to make sure small
businesses can start getting into pools where they can use that pooling
power to reach out and have health insurance coverage that is
affordable. That is within our reach.
Senator Reed is on the Senate floor today. He and I were fortunate
enough to be at lunch today when our colleague from Connecticut, Chris
Dodd, got up and spoke about what had happened in the HELP Committee,
the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in preparing a
bill on health care reform. There were 800 amendments filed. They met
for 61 days. Some 400 amendments were considered and voted on. Over 100
of those were from the Republican side of the aisle. They were trying
their best to create a bipartisan compromise to get through the bill.
But Senator Dodd came up and talked about this, not in terms of a
specific bill and its provisions; he talked about the historic
opportunity we have. He said for many of us, for most of us now serving
in the Senate, this may be the only time in our political careers when
we can change the health care system for the better; when we can make
sure that people in America have a better chance to be able to afford
the cost of health care.
He certainly inspired us when he pulled out this magazine and showed
us a picture of our colleague, Senator Teddy Kennedy, on the cover of
Newsweek, and the quote from Ted Kennedy that says: ``We're almost
there.''
There is a long essay in here about Ted Kennedy's terrific public
career and how much of it has been spent on this issue of health care;
what it meant to him personally when his son was diagnosed with bone
cancer and had to have his leg amputated; what he went through in a
plane crash; when he has seen others and what they have gone through.
Teddy Kennedy reminds us that these opportunities do not come around
very often. There is lots we can debate and argue about, but at the end
of the day the American people want to see the debate end. They want to
see us acting together responsibly for health care that is centered on
patients; to make sure they have a health insurance policy they like,
that they can keep; to make certain they have a good strong
confidential relationship with their doctors for themselves and their
families; to make sure, as well, they are not excluded from coverage
for preexisting conditions; to make sure that health insurance is going
to be affordable; and to make sure it covers all Americans.
We can do it. We are a great and prosperous nation. We have a
President who is committed to it. And working with him on a bipartisan
basis we can get this done. We can work with the health care
professionals--the doctors, the nurses, those leading hospitals--who
can show us the way to reduce the

[[Page 18415]]

cost of care without reducing its quality.
This is our chance. For those who are saying no, that they want the
status quo, they do not want to change it, only a small percentage of
Americans agree with them. Most Americans agree what I have talked
about today needs to be done. We have to overcome those voices of
negativity and doubt who continue to come to the Senate floor, those
who create fear of change.
Let me tell you, this is a great, strong country that tackles big
problems. We have never been assigned a bigger assignment than this
one, health care for America. It touches all 300 million of us. We have
to make sure it is done fairly, done effectively, and done quickly. If
we let this drag out for months beyond this year, it is going to be
harder and harder for us to reach our goal.
I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work toward
that goal, make certain that President Obama's leadership is rewarded
with health care reform that does make a difference.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

Amendment No. 1501

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment that I
am cosponsoring with my friend and fellow cochair of the Senate
National Guard Caucus, Senator Leahy. We will be introducing a
bipartisan amendment to strengthen one of our Nation's most important
military and civilian resources, the National Guard.
The National Guard, as I think everybody in this body knows, has a
long and proud history of contributing to America's military operations
abroad while providing vital support and security to civil authorities
at home.
Since September 11, 2001, our citizen soldiers and airmen have taken
on greater responsibilities and risk, from fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan to providing critical disaster assistance in the United
States.
Now we see the tremendous value of the National Guard forces every
time we look as they confront terrorists, provide critical support in
unique areas such as Afghanistan where the agribusiness development
teams are working to help provide agricultural know-how and better
income to the farmers of Afghanistan, to areas where they provide
water, food, and health supplies to victims of natural disasters.
Furthermore, the Guard is a tremendous value for the capability it
provides our Nation. It provides 40 percent of the total military force
for around 4.5 percent of the budget. In other words, the Guard
provides tremendous bang for the buck.
There is no doubt today we are asking more from the men and women of
the National Guard than ever before, often at great cost to their
families and their own lives.
I think this means we have a heavy responsibility to support our
citizen soldiers and airmen in their unique dual mission of developing
military support abroad and providing homeland defense stateside.
While serving abroad, National Guard troops serve under Air Force and
Army Commands in what is known as title 10 status, which refers to the
section in the U.S. Code dealing with the military. But when the Guard
operates at home, they serve under the command and control of the
Nation's Governors in title 32 status.
I had the honor of serving as commander in chief of the Missouri
National Guard for 8 years. I can tell you that Missouri has a wide
range of natural and sometimes human disasters ranging from tornadoes
and floods to blizzards and ice storms. I called out the Guard for
every single one of those and several more I probably cannot even
remember: threatened prison insurrections, other civil disobedience, to
tracking down escapees from prison. Right after Katrina--I think it was
about a year after Katrina--I visited Jefferson Barracks, MO, where one
of our National Guard engineer units is stationed.
They told me proudly that when Katrina hit, they immediately sent one
of their National Guard battalions to Katrina. They had all the
equipment, the high-wheeled vehicles, the communications equipment.
They did such a wonderful job, the adjutant general of Louisiana called
and said: You have two more battalions; send us another one. They said:
That is where the problem comes in. We only have equipment for one out
of three battalions. The Guard was one-third resourced. We could have
sent them down there in tennis shoes and a taxicab, but they needed the
equipment that an engineer battalion has to deal with the problems of
the aftermath of the floods and the hurricane. I think there is a lot
more we can do to make this unique arrangement work more smoothly. The
Guard will continue to play a critical role in response to another
natural disaster or, heaven forbid, terrorist attack. To the men and
women of the National Guard, we say: Thank you for that support.
But more needs to be done. The amendment we are introducing today to
strengthen the Guard consists of two planks which are designed, first,
to increase the Guard's voice inside the Pentagon and, second, to
clarify how the Federal military support to civil authorities will
occur here at home.
We would give the Chief of the National Guard more muscle in the
Pentagon, providing a seat for him on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With
40 percent of the force, one would think that big a portion of our
total military capability would deserve to sit with the outstanding
leaders of the Army, the Air Force, the Marines, and others who are
there. One would think this large a segment of our force would be
represented. When we have big decisions on the future of our resource
allocation for the military--title X and, in this case, also title
XXXII--they ought to be at the table.
Last year--I thank my colleagues--we successfully authorized the
promotion of the Chief of the National Guard to the rank of four-star
general in last year's empowerment legislation. Additionally, this
year's empowerment amendment will make certain that the Chief of the
National Guard Bureau has a Vice Chief in the grade of lieutenant
general. When you are dealing with that many problems, there is a major
operation that needs to be handled by a deputy to the four-star Chief
of the National Guard. It is critical to the day-to-day operations of
the National Guard Bureau and to ensure the Guard is adequately
represented inside the Pentagon.
This amendment will also fill the gaps between civilian and military
emergency response capabilities. We would give the National Guard
Bureau, in consultation with the States' adjutant generals, budgetary
power to identify, validate, and procure equipment essential to their
unique domestic missions so they will be better prepared to respond to
emergencies here at home. The next time they call for a second engineer
battalion, I hope we have the equipment to send one to whatever State
or maybe our own State where they are needed.
The amendment also supports the designation of National Guard general
officers as commanders of Army North and Air Force North commands. This
will ensure unity of effort and of command between the National Guard
in the 54 States and territories and the very important U.S. North
command which protects the United States in the continental United
States.
Finally, our amendment gives State Governors tactical control of
Federal troops responding to emergencies inside their State or
territory. Time and time again, we have seen Reserve units stationed
within close proximity to a natural or manmade disaster forced to stand
by and watch when they could have been assisting injured victims in
preventing loss of property. This amendment ensures that all available
military forces be utilized as early as possible in an emergency
situation. This way, our State leaders can act more quickly and
decisively to mitigate disasters at home. Our citizen soldiers stand
ready to defend the Nation, secure our homeland from natural disasters
and terrorist attacks, and are now fighting overseas in the war on
terror. Neither the homeland response

[[Page 18416]]

nor the Federal military support missions of the Guard are likely to
diminish in importance at any time in the foreseeable future. In fact,
the need for the National Guard is greater now than ever before. Now
more than ever, as budgets are constrained and entitlements continue to
grow at alarming rates, we should not be looking to reduce the Guard
but, rather, fully to man and equip it.
We have a responsibility to give the Guard the equipment, resources,
and bureaucratic muscle they need to meet their critical dual mission.
In order to do so, it is imperative we strengthen the decisionmaking
capability of Guard leaders within the Department of Defense and make
sure they are at the table.
As one former leader of the Guard said: If you want us in on the big
plays, at least let us in the huddle when you are planning to call
those plays. That is what this amendment does.
I thank my colleagues for their past support of the Guard. I join
with Senator Leahy in asking for continued support of the National
Guard by voting for this amendment.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 1597

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending Thune amendment and call up my amendment No. 1597.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback], for himself, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Kyl, and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered
1597.

Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of
State should redesignate North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism)

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1232. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REDESIGNATION OF NORTH
KOREA AS A STATE SPONSOR OF TERRORISM.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) On October 11, 2008, the Department of State removed
North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, on
which it had been placed in 1988.
(2) North Korea was removed from that list despite its
refusal to account fully for its abduction of foreign
citizens, proliferation of nuclear and other dangerous
technologies and weapon systems to terrorist groups and other
state sponsors of terrorism, or its commission of other past
acts of terrorism.
(3) On March 17, 2009, American journalists Euna Lee and
Laura Ling were seized near the Chinese-North Korean border
by agents of the North Korean government and were
subsequently sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in a prison
camp in North Korea.
(4) On April 5, 2009, the Government of North Korea tested
a long-range ballistic missile in violation of United Nations
Security Council Resolutions 1695 and 1718.
(5) On April 15, 2009, the Government of North Korea
announced it was expelling international inspectors from, and
recommissioning, its Yongbyon nuclear facility and ending its
participation in disarmament talks.
(6) Those actions were in violation of the June 26, 2008,
announcement by the President of the United States that the
removal of North Korea from the list of state sponsors of
terrorism was dependent on the Government of North Korea
agreeing to a system to verify its declarations with respect
to its nuclear programs.
(7) On May 25, 2009, the Government of North Korea
conducted a second illegal nuclear test, in addition to
conducting tests of its ballistic missile systems launched in
the direction of the western United States.
(8) North Korea has failed to acknowledge or account for
its role in building and supplying the secret nuclear
facility at Al Kibar, Syria, has failed to account for all
remaining citizens of Japan abducted by North Korea, and,
according to recent reports, continues to engage in close
cooperation with the terrorist Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Corps on ballistic missile technology.
(9) There have been recent credible reports that North
Korea has provided support to the terrorist group Hezbollah,
including by providing ballistic missile components and
personnel to train members of Hezbollah with respect to the
development of extensive underground military facilities in
southern Lebanon, including tunnels and bunkers.
(10) The 2005 and 2006 Country Reports on Terrorism of the
Department of State state, with respect to Cuba, Iran, North
Korea, and Syria, ``Most worrisome is that some of these
countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and
other destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands
of terrorists. The United States will continue to insist that
these countries end the support they give to terrorist
groups.''.
(11) President Barack Obama stated that actions of the
Government of North Korea ``are a matter of grave concern to
all nations. North Korea's attempts to develop nuclear
weapons, as well as its ballistic missile program, constitute
a threat to international peace and security. By acting in
blatant defiance of the United Nations Security Council,
North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the
international community. North Korea's behavior increases
tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such
provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea's
isolation. It will not find international acceptance unless
it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and
their means of delivery.''.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Secretary of State should designate North Korea as a
country that has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism for purposes of--
(1) section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979
(50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) (as continued in effect pursuant to
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C.
1701 et seq.));
(2) section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C.
2780); and
(3) section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2371).

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is a bipartisan amendment put
forward by Senator Bayh and myself. I ask unanimous consent that
Senators Kyl and Inhofe be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. This is a bipartisan resolution and sense of the
Senate that the administration should relist North Korea as a state
sponsor of terrorism. As my colleagues know, the Bush administration,
through a great deal of hoopla, listed North Korea as a state sponsor
of terrorism. They took them off the list in spite of such terrible and
erratic behavior as nuclear weapons, missile technology, and now taking
U.S. citizens hostage and holding them. Nonetheless, the Bush
administration, as part of the six-party talks, did an agreement, a
deal to delist them as a state sponsor of terrorism. All that got us
was more nuclear weapons, more missiles being sent off, more
provocative action by the North Koreans, and a dismal situation.
What we are asking with the amendment is that it is a sense of the
Senate that North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of
terrorism.
In that regard, I wish to enter a few items in the Record to be
printed at the end of my presentation that are currently in the news.
This is yesterday's front page of the Washington Post where it talks
about ``[North] Korea's Hard-Labor Camps: On the Diplomatic Back
Burner.''
I ask unanimous consent that this full article be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BROWNBACK. That is an old story. Unfortunately, we know very well
about the gulags that exist in North Korea and the 200,000 people we
believe are in those. Here is today's Washington Post. This was new
information I found shocking: North Korea building mysterious military
ties with the military junta in Burma now taking place and the
possibility of them giving military equipment and supplies, I suppose
possibly even nuclear arms and missile technology, to the military
government in Burma.
I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at the end
of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. BROWNBACK. If that is not enough to relist them as a state
sponsor of terrorism, I don't know what is. But there is a full record
we can go forward with on relisting North Korea as a state sponsor of
terrorism. At the outset, I think we ought to look at this and say this
is an extremely tough situation for the United States. It is one on
which we need to take aggressive

[[Page 18417]]

action to confront them on what they are doing to militarize some of
the worst places and worst actors around the world and what North Korea
is doing to threaten interests of the United States.
All this is taking place while Kim Jong Il is ill. To what degree, we
don't know for sure. A succession is being discussed. Of what nature,
we are not sure. But clearly North Korea is doing the most provocative
things they have probably done in the history of that provocative
nation. It is taking place right now. We should notice it and recognize
these are terrorist actions. We should clearly call for them to be
relisted.
I have, many times, spoken before regarding the long and outrageous
list of crimes of the Kim regime. I will not go through those again at
great length. But I will say the crimes committed by the North Korean
regime include not only those external and diplomatic of nature--
violating agreements, treaties, conventions, and proliferating
dangerous technologies to the world's worst actors--but the regime has
also committed massive and unspeakable crimes against the North Korean
people themselves who for decades have been beaten, tortured, raped,
trafficked, starved, used as medical experiments, subjected to
collective familial punishment, and executed in the most brutal and
painful ways. If you want further details on that, read yesterday's
Washington Post article.
Hundreds of thousands languish in the gulag and concentration camps
spread out over the entire country. All the while, the world watches
and wrings its collective hands. As we pledged never again, we watch as
yet again another criminal regime commits a genocide. Never again
becomes yet again.
I have introduced legislation to address these issues. I hope the
Foreign Relations Committee can find time to take it up.
The amendment before us today deals with another aspect of the North
Korean criminal state, its longstanding and robust sponsorship of
international terrorism. The amendment would place the Senate on record
as standing for the proposition that North Korea's hostile and
provocative actions will not be ignored. Indeed, they will have
meaningful consequences under the law. This amendment, of which Senator
Bayh is the lead cosponsor, expresses the sense of the Senate that the
Secretary of State should redesignate North Korea as a state sponsor of
terrorism based on its nuclear and missile proliferation, abductions,
and material support for terrorist groups.
On October 11, 2008, the State Department removed North Korea from
the list of state sponsors of terrorism on which it had been placed
since 1988. At the time, this is what President Bush said to the North
Korean regime upon announcing that North Korea would be removed. He
said:

We will trust you only to the extent that you fulfill your
promises. If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United
States will act accordingly.

They have made the wrong choices. We should act accordingly.
At the same time, then Candidate Obama said:

Sanctions are a critical part of our leverage to pressure
North Korea to act. They should only be lifted based on North
Korean performance. If the North Koreans do not meet their
obligations, we should move quickly to reimpose sanctions
that have been waived and consider new restrictions going
forward.

They have not lived up to their obligations. They have continued
provocative actions. They should be relisted.
Let's examine how well the North Korean regime has lived up to its
commitment since being removed from the list. Since removal last
October, the North Korean regime has done the following: launched a
multistage ballistic missile over Japan in violation of U.N. Security
Council sanctions; kidnapped and imprisoned two American journalists
and sentenced them to 12 years of hard labor in a North Korean prison
camp; pulled out of the six-party talks vowing never to return; kicked
out international nuclear inspectors and American monitors; restarted
its nuclear facilities; renounced the 50-year armistice with South
Korea; detonated a second illegal nuclear weapon; launched additional
short-range missiles; is preparing to launch long-range missiles
capable of reaching the United States; and today news accounts are
reporting about North Korean proliferation to the Burmese junta,
including perhaps nuclear proliferation.
Add to this a long history of other ongoing illicit operations that
finance the North Korean regime's budget, including the following:
extensive drug smuggling; massive and complex operations to counterfeit
U.S. currency, many of which are believed to be in wide circulation;
money laundering; terrorist threats by the regime against the United
States, Japanese, and South Korean civilians. That is what this regime
and group has done and is doing. That is some of what they have done
since they were delisted from the terrorist list.
What have we done in response? The U.N. Security Council has passed
another sanctions resolution similar to the same resolution North Korea
has brazenly violated to get us to this point. In 2006, the State
Department, in its terrorism report, said this about keeping North
Korea on the list: North Korea ``continued to maintain their ties to
terrorist groups.''
They said:

Most worrisome is that some of these countries [including
North Korea] also have the capability to manufacture [weapons
of mass destruction] and other destabilizing technologies
that can get into the hands of terrorists.

If that was the justification for the terror list in 2006, certainly
North Korea's actions today fit that standard--perhaps even more so
than back then, and I believe it is more so.
We cannot have it both ways. If we removed North Korea from the
terrorism list last year as a reward for its dubious cooperation on
nuclear weapons, we would only be reversing that step by adding it back
after the regime betrayed its commitments and followed up with hostile
and provocative actions.
I would also like to address this issue: It often has been raised
with me--and the Secretary of State herself has raised this indirectly
with me--that the multiple statutes that control the list of state
sponsors of terrorism do not provide the legal ability for the
Secretary of State to redesignate. I think this argument is flawed, and
I would like to summarize that by reading the relevant portions of each
of these acts, because here is the key point on it, that they are
saying: Well, we have to find factual basis that is different from the
first round for us to do that. We are going through a legal review of
doing this. But here the state sponsor of terrorism list is controlled
under two different acts: the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign
Assistance Act.
As to countries covered by the prohibition, it says this. This is
quoting from the Arms Export Control Act:

The prohibitions contained in this section apply with
respect to a country if the Secretary of State determines
that the government of that country has repeatedly provided
support for acts of international terrorism.

That is what it says in the Arms Export Control Act. The list I have
just read goes through what has taken place, and they are clearly and
repeatedly providing support for acts of international terrorism. It
does not say anything about they cannot be relisted or we have to go
through some elaborate finding process, that it cannot be based on
actions they have done. These are the actions they have done in the
last 6 months that are of public record. And it says the Secretary of
State makes this determination and has fairly wide discretion to be
able to do it.
Under section 628 of the Foreign Assistance Act, it says: The United
States shall not provide any assistance to any country if the Secretary
of State determines that the government of that country has repeatedly
provided support for acts of international terrorism.
Again, the statute is very broad in its statement. It does not say
anything about they cannot relist them. It says they can do this on the
discretion of the Secretary of State.

[[Page 18418]]

I do not know why we need to wait any longer, with the actions this
government has taken and even with these most recent ones reported
today of working with Burma or of the publicly done ones we know about
of nuclear weapons detonation or the ones of missile technology being
launched. Why do we need to wait longer?
I recognize this is a sense of the Senate, so it is just a sense of
this body. But this body has had a strong impact in prior actions when
we took a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to list the Revolutionary
Guard in Iran, that we believed they should be listed as a state
sponsor of terrorism. The administration acted not long after that to
list them as a state sponsor of terrorism.
I believe if this body took strong action here now and said we
believe North Korea should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism,
it would send a very strong and proper signal to the administration--
not that we are doing your job, but we believe this is the case and
this is something that is meritorious toward North Korea and its
actions.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan Bayh-
Brownback amendment and vote for this amendment to the Defense
authorization bill.

Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the Washington Post, July 20, 2009]

N. Korea's Hard-Labor Camps: On the Diplomatic Back Burner

(By Blaine Harden)

Seoul.--Images and accounts of the North Korean gulag
become sharper, more harrowing and more accessible with each
passing year.
A distillation of testimony from survivors and former
guards, newly published by the Korean Bar Association,
details the daily lives of 200,000 political prisoners
estimated to be in the camps: Eating a diet of mostly corn
and salt, they lose their teeth, their gums turn black, their
bones weaken and, as they age, they hunch over at the waist.
Most work 12- to 15-hour days until they die of malnutrition-
related illnesses, usually around the age of 50. Allowed just
one set of clothes, they live and die in rags, without soap,
socks, underclothes or sanitary napkins.
The camps have never been visited by outsiders, so these
accounts cannot be independently verified. But high-
resolution satellite photographs, now accessible to anyone
with an Internet connection, reveal vast labor camps in the
mountains of North Korea. The photographs corroborate
survivors' stories, showing entrances to mines where former
prisoners said they worked as slaves, in-camp detention
centers where former guards said uncooperative prisoners were
tortured to death and parade grounds where former prisoners
said they were forced to watch executions. Guard towers and
electrified fences surround the camps, photographs show.
``We have this system of slavery right under our nose,''
said An Myeong Chul, a camp guard who defected to South
Korea. ``Human rights groups can't stop it. South Korea can't
stop it. The United States will have to take up this issue at
the negotiating table.''
But the camps have not been discussed in meetings between
U.S. diplomats and North Korean officials. By exploding
nuclear bombs, launching missiles and cultivating a
reputation for hair-trigger belligerence, the government of
Kim Jong Il has created a permanent security flash point on
the Korean Peninsula--and effectively shoved the issue of
human rights off the negotiating table.
``Talking to them about the camps is something that has not
been possible,'' said David Straub, a senior official in the
State Department's office of Korean affairs during the Bush
and Clinton years. There have been no such meetings since
President Obama took office.
``They go nuts when you talk about it,'' said Straub, who
is now associate director of Korean studies at Stanford
University.
Nor have the camps become much of an issue for the American
public, even though annotated images of them can be quickly
called up on Google Earth and even though they have existed
for half a century, 12 times as long as the Nazi
concentration camps and twice as long as the Soviet Gulag.
Although precise numbers are impossible to obtain, Western
governments and human groups estimate that hundreds of
thousands of people have died in the North Korean camps.
North Korea officially says the camps do not exist. It
restricts movements of the few foreigners it allows into the
country and severely punishes those who sneak in. U.S.
reporters Laura Ling and Euna Lee were sentenced last month
to 12 years of hard labor, after being convicted in a closed
trial on charges of entering the country illegally.
North Korea's gulag also lacks the bright light of
celebrity attention. No high-profile, internationally
recognized figure has emerged to coax Americans into
understanding or investing emotionally in the issue, said
Suzanne Scholte, a Washington-based activist who brings camp
survivors to the United States for speeches and marches.
``Tibetans have the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere, Burmese
have Aung San Suu Kyi, Darfurians have Mia Farrow and George
Clooney,'' she said. ``North Koreans have no one like that.''

Executions as Lessons

Before guards shoot prisoners who have tried to escape,
they turn each execution into a teachable moment, according
to interviews with five North Koreans who said they have
witnessed such killings.
Prisoners older than 16 are required to attend, and they
are forced to stand as close as 15 feet to the condemned,
according to the interviews. A prison official usually gives
a lecture, explaining how the Dear Leader, as Kim Jong Il is
known, had offered a ``chance at redemption'' through hard
labor.
The condemned are hooded, and their mouths are stuffed with
pebbles. Three guards fire three times each, as onlookers see
blood spray and bodies crumple, those interviewed said.
``We almost experience the executions ourselves,'' said
Jung Gwang Il, 47, adding that he witnessed two executions as
an inmate at Camp 15. After three years there, Jung said, he
was allowed to leave in 2003. He fled to China and now lives
in Seoul.
Like several former prisoners, Jung said the most arduous
part of his imprisonment was his pre-camp interrogation at
the hands of the Bowibu, the National Security Agency. After
eight years in a government office that handled trade with
China, a fellow worker accused him of being a South Korean
agent.
``They wanted me to admit to being a spy,'' Jung said.
``They knocked out my front teeth with a baseball bat. They
fractured my skull a couple of times. I was not a spy, but I
admitted to being a spy after nine months of torture.''
When he was arrested, Jung said, he weighed 167 pounds.
When his interrogation was finished, he said, he weighed 80
pounds. ``When I finally got to the camp, I actually gained
weight,'' said Jung, who worked summers in cornfields and
spent winters in the mountains felling trees.
``Most people die of malnutrition, accidents at work, and
during interrogation,'' said Jung, who has become a human
rights advocate in Seoul. ``It is people with perseverance
who survive. The ones who think about food all the time go
crazy. I worked hard, so guards selected me to be a leader in
my barracks. Then I didn't have to expend so much energy, and
I could get by on corn.''

Defectors' Accounts

Human rights groups, lawyers committees and South Korean-
funded think tanks have detailed what goes on in the camps
based on in-depth interviews with survivors and former guards
who trickle out of North Korea into China and find their way
to South Korea.
The motives and credibility of North Korean defectors in
the South are not without question. They are desperate to
make a living. Many refuse to talk unless they are paid.
South Korean psychologists who debrief defectors describe
them as angry, distrustful and confused. But in hundreds of
separate interviews conducted over two decades, defectors
have told similar stories that paint a consistent portrait of
life, work, torment and death in the camps.
The number of camps has been consolidated from 14 to about
five large sites, according to former officials who worked in
the camps. Camp 22, near the Chinese border, is 31 miles long
and 25 miles wide, an area larger than the city of Los
Angeles. As many as 50,000 prisoners are held there, a former
guard said.
There is a broad consensus among researchers about how the
camps are run: Most North Koreans are sent there without any
judicial process. Many inmates die in the camps unaware of
the charges against them. Guilt by association is legal under
North Korean law, and up to three generations of a
wrongdoer's family are sometimes imprisoned, following a rule
from North Korea's founding dictator, Kim Il Sung: ``Enemies
of class, whoever they are, their seed must be eliminated
through three generations.''
Crimes that warrant punishment in political prison camps
include real or suspected opposition to the government. ``The
camp system in its entirety can be perceived as a massive and
elaborate system of persecution on political grounds,''
writes human rights investigator David Hawk, who has studied
the camps extensively. Common criminals serve time elsewhere.
Prisoners are denied any contact with the outside world,
according to the Korean Bar Association's 2008 white paper on
human rights in North Korea. The report also found that
suicide is punished with longer prison terms for surviving
relatives; guards can beat, rape and kill prisoners with
impunity; when female prisoners become pregnant without
permission, their babies are killed.
Most of the political camps are ``complete control
districts,'' which means that inmates work there until death.

[[Page 18419]]

There is, however, a ``revolutionizing district'' at Camp
15, where prisoners can receive remedial indoctrination in
socialism. After several years, if they memorize the writings
of Kim Jong Il, they are released but remain monitored by
security officials.

South's Changing Response

Since it offers a safe haven to defectors, South Korea is
home to scores of camp survivors. All of them have been
debriefed by the South Korean intelligence service, which
presumably knows more about the camps than any agency outside
of Pyongyang.
But for nearly a decade, despite revelations in scholarly
reports, TV documentaries and memoirs, South Korea avoided
public criticism of the North's gulag. It abstained from
voting on U.N. resolutions that criticized North Korea's
record on human rights and did not mention the camps during
leadership summits in 2000 or 2007. Meanwhile, under a
``sunshine policy'' of peaceful engagement, South Korea made
major economic investments in the North and gave huge,
unconditional annual gifts of food and fertilizer.
The public, too, has been largely silent. ``South Koreans,
who publicly cherish the virtue of brotherly love, have been
inexplicably stuck in a deep quagmire of indifference,''
according to the Korean Bar Association, which says it
publishes reports on human rights in North Korea to ``break
the stalemate.''
Government policy changed last year under President Lee
Myung-bak, who has halted unconditional aid, backed U.N.
resolutions that criticize the North and tried to put human
rights on the table in dealing with Pyongyang. In response,
North Korea has called Lee a ``traitor,'' squeezed inter-
Korean trade and threatened war.

An Enforcer's View

An Myeong Chul was allowed to work as a guard and driver in
political prison camps because, he said, he came from a
trustworthy family. His father was a North Korean
intelligence agent, as were the parents of many of his fellow
guards.
In his training to work in the camps, An said, he was
ordered, under penalty of becoming a prisoner himself, never
to show pity. It was permissible, he said, for bored guards
to beat or kill prisoners.
``We were taught to look at inmates as pigs,'' said An, 41,
adding that he worked in the camps for seven years before
escaping to China in 1994. He now works in a bank in Seoul.
The rules he enforced were simple. ``If you do not meet
your work quota, you do not eat much,'' he said. ``You are
not allowed to sleep until you finish your work. If you still
do not finish your work, you are sent to a little prison
inside the camp. After three months, you leave that prison
dead.''
An said the camps play a crucial role in the maintenance of
totalitarian rule. ``All high-ranking officials underneath
Kim Jong Il know that one misstep means you go to the camps,
along with your family,'' he said.
Partly to assuage his guilt, An has become an activist and
has been talking about the camps for more than a decade. He
was among the first to help investigators identify camp
buildings using satellite images. Still, he said, nothing
will change in camp operations without sustained diplomatic
pressure, especially from the United States.

Inconsistent U.S. Approach

The U.S. government has been a fickle advocate.
In the Clinton years, high-level diplomatic contacts
between Washington and Pyongyang focused almost exclusively
on preventing the North from developing nuclear weapons and
expanding its ballistic missile capability.
President George W. Bush's administration took a radically
different approach. It famously labeled North Korea as part
of an ``axis of evil,'' along with Iran and Iraq. Bush met
with camp survivors. For five years, U.S. diplomats refused
to have direct negotiations with North Korea.
After North Korea detonated a nuclear device in 2006, the
Bush administration decided to talk. The negotiations,
however, focused exclusively on dismantling Pyongyang's
expanded nuclear program.
In recent months, North Korea has reneged on its promise to
abandon nuclear weapons, kicked out U.N. weapons inspectors,
exploded a second nuclear device and created a major security
crisis in Northeast Asia.
Containing that crisis has monopolized the Obama
administration's dealings with North Korea. The camps, for
the time being, are a non-issue. ``Unfortunately, until we
get a handle on the security threat, we can't afford to deal
with human rights,'' said Peter Beck, a former executive
director of the U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North
Korea.

A Family's Tribulations

Kim Young Soon, once a dancer in Pyongyang, said she spent
eight years in Camp 15 during the 1970s. Under the guilt-by-
association rule, she said, her four children and her parents
were also sentenced to hard labor there.
At the camp, she said, her parents starved to death and her
eldest son drowned. Around the time of her arrest, her
husband was shot for trying to flee the country, as was her
youngest son after his release from the camp.
It was not until 1989, more than a decade after her
release, that she found out why she had been imprisoned. A
security official told her then that she was punished because
she had been a friend of Kim Jong Il's first wife and that
she would ``never be forgiven again'' if the state suspected
that she had gossiped about the Dear Leader.
She escaped to China in 2000 and now lives in Seoul. At 73,
she said she is furious that the outside world doesn't take
more interest in the camps. ``I had a friend who loved Kim
Jong Il, and for that the government killed my family,'' she
said. ``How can it be justified?''

Exhibit 2

[From the Washington Post, July 21, 2009]

Clinton: U.S. Wary of Growing Burmese, North Korean Military
Cooperation

(By Glenn Kessler)

Bangkok, July 21.--The Obama administration is increasingly
concerned that nuclear-armed North Korea is building
mysterious military ties with Burma, another opaque country
with a history of oppression, Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton said Tuesday.
``We know that there are also growing concerns about
military cooperation between North Korea and Burma, which we
take seriously'' Clinton told reporters after talks in the
Thai capital. ``It would be destabilizing for the region. It
would pose a direct threat to Burma's neighbors.''
U.S. officials traveling with Clinton, who is in Thailand
to attend a regional security forum, said the concerns about
Burma and North Korea extend to possible nuclear cooperation.
North Korea has a long history of illicit missile sales and
proliferation, including secretly helping to build a Syrian
nuclear reactor that was destroyed in 2007 by Israeli jets.
``This is one of the areas we'd like to know about,'' said
one official. ``We have concerns, but our information is
incomplete.''
Burma, also known as Myanmar, is regarded as one of the
world's most oppressive nations, run by generals who have
enriched themselves while much of the country remains
desperately poor. North Korea is an equally grim country,
with vast prison camps and an ailing dictator, Kim Jong Il.
The evidence of growing Burmese-North Korean cooperation
since formal ties were restored in 2007 is extensive, but the
full extent of the military relationship is unclear.
The nuclear connection is even murkier, but intelligence
agencies have tracked suspicious procurement of high-
precision equipment from Europe, as well as the arrival in
Burma of North Korean officials associated with the company
connected to the Syria reactor, according to David Albright,
director of the Institute for Science and International
Security in Washington.
``Something may be going on, but no one has any proof. It
is a mix of suspicions and concerns,'' Albright said, adding
that close examination of satellite imagery of suspected
nuclear sites has turned up no evidence. But he said that the
purchases of high-precision equipment were especially
troubling because the equipment did not make sense for use in
missiles and it was shipped to educational entities that had
connections to Burmese nuclear experts.
Japanese officials last month also arrested three people
for attempting to illegally export dual-use equipment to
Burma, via Malaysia, under the direction of a company
involved in the illicit procurement for North Korean military
programs.
Moreover, Albright said, European and U.S. intelligence
agencies have identified people associated with Namchongang
Trading Corp., a North Korean company also known as NCG, as
working in Burma. NCG reportedly provided the critical link
between Pyongyang and Damascus, acquiring key materials from
vendors in China and probably from Europe and secretly
transferring them to a desert construction site near the
Syrian town of Kibar.
The State Department last month cited NCG for being
``involved in the purchase of aluminum tubes and other
equipment specifically suitable for a uranium enrichment
program since the late 1990s.''
U.S. officials have observed other troubling connections.
The U.S. Navy last month closely tracked Kang Nam 1, a rusty
North Korean freighter, after the government in Pyongyang
tested a nuclear weapon. Although U.S. officials were never
completely certain the ship was headed to Burma, the ship
returned to North Korea after the United States, China and
other countries put pressure on Burma to respect a United
Nations resolution barring most North Korean weapons exports.
Photographs that have emerged in recent weeks also show an
extensive series of 600 to 800 tunnel complexes and other
underground facilities built in Burma with North Korean
technical assistance near its new capital, Naypyidaw. North
Korean officials can be spotted in the photos, which were
taken between 2003 and 2006 and posted on the Web site of
YaleGlobal Online by journalist Bertil Lintner, an expert on
Burma.
Burma has uranium deposits, but as a signatory to the
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it is required to allow
inspections of

[[Page 18420]]

any nuclear facilities. Russia in 2007 agreed to help build a
10-megawatt light-water reactor in Burma, but little appears
to have come of the project.
At the news conference, Clinton also strongly criticized
the Burmese government for its well-documented use of gang
rape as a military tactic, organized by Burmese officers,
against ethnic minorities. A new offensive against the Karen
ethnic group has sent more than 4,000 refugees fleeing across
the border into Thailand in recent weeks.
``We are deeply concerned by reports of continuing human
rights abuses within Burma, particularly by actions that are
attributed to the Burmese military concerning the
mistreatment and abuse of young girls,'' Clinton said.
The Obama administration is conducting a review of its
Burma policy, which Clinton said has been placed on hold
while Washington awaits the outcome of the trial of Nobel
Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.
``We have made clear we expect fair treatment of Aung San
Suu Kyi, and we have condemned the way that she has been
treated by the regime in Burma, which we consider to be
baseless and totally unacceptable,'' Clinton said.
The National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi's party, won a
landslide electoral victory in 1990, but the military
leadership refused to accept it. Since then, she has been
under house arrest for most of the time, as have hundreds of
her supporters.
In May, just days before Suu Kyi's six-year term under
house arrest was due to expire, the government put her on
trial for an incident involving a U.S. citizen who swam
across Rangoon's Lake Inya to reach Suu Kyi's lakefront
bungalow and allegedly stayed there one or two nights.
Suu Kyi was taken to Rangoon's notorious Insein Prison on
charges of violating the terms of her detention by hosting a
foreigner, which could bring a three- to five-year prison
term, according to Burmese opposition officials. Suu Kyi, 63,
is said to be in poor health and has recently been treated
for dehydration and low blood pressure.
``Our position is that we are willing to have a more
productive partnership with Burma if they take steps that are
self-evident,'' Clinton said. She called on Burmese
authorities to ``end the violence against their own people,''
including ethnic minorities, ``end the mistreatment of Aung
San Suu Kyi'' and release political prisoners.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Kerry, is prepared to comment and speak. I ask
unanimous consent that at the conclusion of his remarks, the Senator
from Delaware be recognized as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, obviously North Korea's actions in recent
weeks--months, really; testing a nuclear device on May 25 and launching
ballistic missiles on July 4--received the appropriate objection in
many different ways of China, Japan, South Korea, the United States,
and many other countries. Clearly, those actions threaten to undermine
the peace and security of northeast Asia, and the U.S. response to
those actions ought to be and, I believe, is already resolute. China
responded very clearly. The sanctions have been toughened--individual
sanctions for the first time. A number of steps were taken by both the
United Nations and China. China, incidentally, has been unprecedented
in the personalization of some of the sanctions that it has put into
place.
I know the Senator from Kansas cares, obviously, enormously about the
underlying issue here. But I have to say this amendment, while well
intended, simply does not do what it is supposed to do. It has no
impact other than the sense of the Senate: sending a message which at
this particular moment, frankly, works counterproductively to other
efforts that are underway.
Right now, the Secretary of State is meeting at ASEAN. Right now, the
various countries involved in this delicate process are working to
determine how to proceed forward with respect to getting back to talks
and defusing these tensions. For the Senate just to pop on an amendment
like this at this moment in time not only sends a signal that
complicates that process, but I think it also, frankly, will make it
more difficult to secure the return of two American journalists, Laura
Ling and Euna Lee.
It simply is an inappropriate interference without a foundation, I
might add--without a foundation--in the law. Let me be very specific.
When President Bush lifted the designation of terrorism--in fact,
nothing that the Senator from Kansas has laid out here actually is
supported either by the intelligence or by the facts. I could go
through his amendment with specificity. Let me give an example. This is
from the findings in his amendment:

On March 17, 2009, American journalists . . . were seized
near the Chinese-North Korean border by agents. . . .

He is citing that as a rationale for putting them back on the list.
Well, the fact is, the families themselves, as well as the two
journalists--but the families--have acknowledged that they, in fact,
were arrested for illegally crossing the border. So that is
inappropriate. But not only is it inappropriate to cite a fact that is
not a fact, but it is not a cause for putting somebody on the terrorism
list.
Nowhere do any of the actions cited here fit into the statutes that
apply to whether somebody is designated as appropriately being on the
terrorism list. Let me be more specific about that. When President Bush
took them off the list, here is what they said. This is the President's
certification:

The current intelligence assessment satisfies the second
statutory requirement for rescission. Following a review of
all available information, we see no credible evidence at
this time of ongoing support by the DPRK for international
terrorism, and we assess that the current intelligence
assessment, including the most recent assessment published
May 21, 2008, provides a sufficient basis for certification
by the President to Congress that North Korea has not
provided any support for international terrorism during the
preceding 6-month period.

There is no intelligence showing to the contrary, as we come to the
floor here today, and it is inappropriate for the Senate simply to step
in and assert to the contrary.
Moreover, the President said:

Our review of intelligence community assessments indicates
there is no credible or sustained reporting at this time that
supports allegations (including as cited in recent reports by
the Congressional Research Service) that the DPRK has
provided direct or witting support for Hezbollah, Tamil
Tigers, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Should we obtain
credible evidence of current DPRK support for international
terrorism at any time in the future, the Secretary could
again designate DPRK a state sponsor of terrorism.

Well, we have not. It simply does not fit under the requirements.
We need to use the right tools. This amendment is flawed and I am
convinced could actually undermine what I know is going on right now in
terms of efforts by a number of different parties to try to move this
process forward. This is not the way a responsible Senate ought to go
about trying to deal with an issue with this kind of diplomatic
consequence.
The relisting, incidentally, has no practical effect in terms of
anything it would do with respect to our current policy other than
raise the issue with respect to the Senate at this moment but, as I
say, inappropriately with respect to the statutes it concerns.
President Bush actually preserved all the existing financial
sanctions on North Korea at the time he lifted the terror designation,
and he kept them all in place by using other provisions of law.
The fact is, this administration has, in fact, responded in order to
put real costs on North Korea for its actions. We led the international
effort at the United Nations Security Council, and we did enact
sweeping new sanctions on North Korea, and by all accounts they are
biting.
The U.N. Security Council resolution 1874, passed unanimously,
imposed the first ever comprehensive international arms embargo on
North Korea. Those sanctions are now beginning to take effect. A North
Korean ship suspected of carrying arms to Burma turned around after it
was denied bunkering services in Singapore, and the Government of Burma
itself warned that the ship would be inspected on arrival to ensure
that it complied with the U.N. arms embargo. So that is real. That is
happening. Significantly, China has agreed to impose sanctions both on
North Korean companies and individuals involved in nuclear and
ballistic missile proliferation.

[[Page 18421]]

So the sanctions that were recently imposed by the Obama
administration, in concert with the international community, are having
a real impact. So I think we ought to give them time to work. I do not
think we ought to come in here and change the dynamics that, as I say,
I know are currently being worked on by the Secretary of State. As we
are here in the Senate today, those meetings are taking place. It is
better for the United States and the international community to focus
our efforts on concrete steps rather than resort to a toothless and
symbolic gesture. This will have no impact ultimately because we are
still going to go down our course, but it can ripple the process which
the administration has chosen to pursue.
I might also point out, the President and Secretary of State have
been closely communicating with allies and with partners in the region.
They are currently involved in discussions with China, Russia, South
Korea, and Japan on this issue. Even as we debate the issue here, the
effort at the ASEAN Forum is specifically geared to try to coordinate
our approach with our treaty allies and with others. We ought to give
the administration the opportunity to succeed.
Third, obviously all of us reject the recent actions taken by North
Korea. There is no doubt about that. But it was not so long ago that we
were actually making some progress on the denuclearization effort. And
observers of the region--those who are expert and who follow it
closely--are all in agreement as to the rationale which has driven
North Korea to take some of the actions it has taken.
I was in China about a month and a half ago. I spent some time with
Chinese leaders on this issue because one of the tests took place while
I was there and I saw the Chinese reaction up close and personal. I saw
the degree to which they were truly upset by it, disturbed by it, and
took actions to deal with it. The fact is that they explained it, as
have others, as a reaction by North Korea to perhaps three things: No.
1, the succession issues in North Korea itself; No. 2, the policies of
the South Korean Government over the course of the last year or so; and
No. 3, the fact that while they had nuclear weapons and had been
engaged in a denuclearization discussion with the United States, most
of the focus appeared to have shifted to Iran, and there was some sense
that the focus should have remained where those nuclear weapons
currently exist.
So I believe we need to preserve diplomatic flexibility in the weeks
and months ahead. There is an appropriate time for the administration
to come to us. There is an appropriate way for us to deal with this
issue, to sit down with the administration, to make it clear to them
that we think we ought to do this, to talk with them about it, to
engage in what the rationale might be under the law. But as I say, none
of the reasons that are legitimate under the law for, in fact, a
designated country as going on the terrorist list is appropriate or fit
here. I think that is the most critical reason of all.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank the floor
manager on the majority side for this unanimous consent which allows me
to proceed now under morning business.
I wish to say a word or two about the Defense authorization bill
which is before us, and then I want to pivot. I will talk about the
health of our Nation's defense, but also about the health care of our
people.
Let me start off by extending my thanks to the leaders of the Armed
Services Committee, Senator Levin and Senator McCain, and their staffs
for the good work they have done. I wish to thank Senator Reed of Rhode
Island for his contributions as well. Standing here on the floor, I am
looking at Senator Reed, a graduate of the Military Academy at West
Point, and right across the aisle, at Senator McCain, a graduate of the
Naval Academy. It is great to have that kind of experience here in the
Senate. They are sitting on opposite sides of the aisle, coming from
schools that are sometimes thought to be rivals, but they are able to
work together when we need them to.
I wish to express my thanks to the President and to the Secretary of
Defense Bob Gates. We have learned that in the last 7 years, cost
overruns from major weapons systems in this country grew from about $45
million in 2001 to last year almost $300 billion, a growth over 7 years
in cost overruns for major weapons systems in 2001 of $45 million and
last year almost $300 billion. What we need is for the administration
as well as the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs to say to the
folks on the Armed Services Committee, but also to say to us in the
Senate and in the House: These are the weapons systems we need, these
are the threats we believe we face as a nation, and to give us some
sense of priorities of the weapons systems we should support and fund,
the troop levels we need and, frankly, the weapons systems we don't
need and the troop levels we don't need.
I was privileged to follow on the heels of the Presiding Officer,
Senator Kaufman, about a month and a half ago to Afghanistan and
Pakistan. He and Senator Reed, I think, led that CODEL and shared with
us our needs in that part of the world. We need a military strategy and
we also need a civilian strategy in Afghanistan, and I think this
administration has given us a good two-pronged approach. We have good
new leadership there on the military side. Basically, though, they said
our job here is counterinsurgency. We need more troops, more trainers
to train the Afghans and to train the military side, and then the
civilian side. We also need mobility in terms of a lot of additional
helicopters, about 150 new helicopters or additional ones coming in to
provide the mobility to move our men and women all over the southern
part of Afghanistan, and to meet the Taliban threat.
The kind of weapon we don't use there or don't need there, I will be
very blunt, is the F-22 which we discussed and debated here for the
last several days, a fighter aircraft that has been around for a dozen
or so years. We are still building more of them, but they have never
flown a flight mission in Iraq and never flown a flight mission in
Afghanistan either. The F-22 is limited in what it can do. It basically
is a fighter, air-to-air combat. The Afghans, the Taliban, don't have
fighter aircraft. In Iraq, the folks we are fighting there don't have
aircraft. Meanwhile, we have F-15s, F-16s, F-18s. We are going to build
2,500 F-35s, for less than half the price of the F-22, which not only
do dog fights but can also do ground-to-air support and a variety of
different functions that the F-22 cannot for a lot less money. The
administration, I think wisely, said as hard as it is sometimes to stop
the production line on aircraft, in this case the F-22, in terms of
what is cost effective, we need to refocus on the F-35 and on
counterinsurgency, preparing for those kinds of challenges we face. We
voted to do that, a 58-to-40 vote. I was very pleased with the vote and
I commend everyone who voted as they did, and, frankly, the people who
took the opposite view. There were some tough issues to deal with, I
know particularly from folks in whose States the aircraft are being
produced and systems for those aircraft are being produced. I know it
is difficult to accept. But I am encouraged by that vote.
My hope is we will pay heed to some of the priorities sent to us by
the Secretary of Defense, which are designed to make sure we spend
money on weapons systems that we are likely to need in the 21st
century--certainly in the next decade or two or three--and I think with
today's vote, we are on a better path to do that.

Health Care Reform

Sort of pivoting, if I can, after having said a word about the health
of our Nation's defense, let me talk about the health of the people in
our country. Some of my colleagues are probably getting tired of
hearing me say this, but when talking about health care, I mention four
things: No. 1, we spend more money for health care than any other
nation on Earth. No. 2, we don't get better results. No. 3, we have
14,000

[[Page 18422]]

people in this country today losing their health care. No. 4, some 47
million Americans today don't have health insurance, don't have health
care. We have to do better than this. We have to do better than this. I
believe we can.
There has been a big focus, as there should be, on extending health
care coverage to 47 million folks who don't have it, and we need to
address that, obviously. Having said that, the other concern we need to
address is reining in the growth of health care costs. We are getting
clobbered as a nation in terms of being able to compete with the rest
of the world where we pay so much more money for health care than any
other nation, and employers pay, and we are getting clobbered as a
Federal Government with the cost of Medicare and Medicaid, and State
governments trying to bear their share of the cost of Medicaid. They
see enormous pressures on their State budgets.
Over lunch today, I said to my colleagues in our caucus meeting that
wouldn't it be great if somehow we could have our cake and eat it too.
I said that with a piece of chocolate cake staring me right in the
face. But as it turned out, there are delivery systems, if you will, of
health care in this country where they are not necessarily having their
cake and eating it too, but where they are able to provide better
health care, better outcomes, at a lower price. Think about that:
better health care, better outcomes, better quality of health care at a
lower price.
The names are beginning to become familiar to us. Some are already
familiar: Mayo in Minnesota, and now they have an operation down in
Florida too to see if that model will work in Florida, and it has;
Kaiser Permanente in northern California, an outfit called
Intermountain Health--all of these are nonprofits--Cleveland Clinic in
Cleveland, OH, an outfit called Geisinger in Hershey, PA; there is what
is called a health care cooperative in the State of Washington, I
believe it is around Puget Sound, called Puget Sound Cooperative where
they have been able to emulate this interesting result of better
quality outcomes, better health care, lower prices.
What we need to do is to attempt not only to extend health care
coverage to folks who don't have it--47 million--but to rein in the
growth of health care costs. The idea that health care costs grow at 2
or 3 or 4 percent over the consumer price index, to continue to do that
is going to cripple us economically and competitively as a nation. It
is going to cripple our ability to rein in our large and growing
deficits.
In the last 8 years in this Nation we ran up as much new debt as we
did in the first 208 years of our Nation's history. Think about that:
In the last 8 years, we ran up as much new debt in this country as we
did in our first 208 years as a nation. This year we are on track to
have the biggest single-year deficit we have ever had. We are also in
the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and we are
trying to stimulate the economy and get it moving. I am encouraged that
it is starting to move, but that is a huge deficit, coming on the heels
of, frankly, 8 years where we spent like drunken sailors, and I know
how drunken sailors spend. It is not a pretty sight, and this is,
frankly, not a pretty sight either.
We need to go to school on the Mayos, the Geisingers, the Cleveland
Clinics, the Kaiser Permanentes, the Puget Sounds, the Intermountain
Healths, and see what we can learn from them. What is their secret? How
are they able to do this, better outcomes, less price?
As it turns out, there are a number of things they do in common. I
wish to mention a few of them today. Among the things they do, they
have literally brought on to their staff the doctors at Cleveland
Clinic, for example, who provide health care. They are on staff at the
Cleveland Clinic. The same is true at Mayo and these other nonprofits.
I saw an interesting special on CNN a couple of weekends ago. They
were interviewing a number of people who worked at the Cleveland
Clinic. They interviewed a fellow who is a doctor, a cardiologist, as I
recall. He used to be in private practice. He said, in the old days
when I was on my own in private practice or group practice, I got paid,
compensated, for the number of hearts I operated on. If somebody came
to me and they had a heart problem and it could be addressed by diet or
exercise or medicine, he said, usually I didn't prescribe those things.
I didn't get paid for doing that. If they needed to have a heart
operation and we could address their problem with an operation, he
said, I got paid for that. As a result, I was more inclined to operate
on people's hearts than to use some approaches that were arguably more
cost effective. He went on to say, now I work for the Cleveland Clinic.
I am a staff doc here. I don't have to operate on people's hearts to be
compensated. I can provide good advice, help people with their diet
problems, their exercise problems, their weight problems. I can help
people better understand what their opportunities are with medicine. I
still get paid. Bingo.
So a light went off for me. Some of us are hearing quite a bit the
need to get away from these fee-for-service deals where we basically
incentivize doctors, hospitals, and nurses to ask for and order more
visits, more procedures, more MRIs, more lab tests, for imaging, more
x-rays, because they get paid for it, because they know that by doing
more of everything, they reduce the likelihood that they are going to
be sued. That sort of gets us in this conundrum where we overuse health
care. If we are going to have real success in drawing down the costs of
health care, part of it will be addressing the issue of fee for
service, get away from that practice, and get away from the
overutilization of the health care we have.
Let me mention some of the things they are doing at these five or six
entities I mentioned, these nonprofits. Among the things they do is
coordinate care. I use my mom as an example. My mom is now deceased.
She lived in Florida for roughly the last 30 or so years of her life.
She had dementia; she had congestive heart failure; she had arthritis.
She had five doctors. The last years of her life that she was down
there, my sister and I would go down to visit my mom about every other
month or so. We would take turns, and we would go with our mom to visit
her doctors. These five doctors my mom had never talked to each other.
In fact, I don't think they knew that the other doctors existed. They
were all in the aggregate prescribing something like 15 different kinds
of prescription medicines. We kept them at her home in what looked like
my dad's old fishing tackle box. It was compartmentalized with
medicines to take before breakfast, during breakfast, after breakfast;
before lunch, during lunch, and throughout the day. Some of those
medicines my mom was prescribed, she didn't need to take. Somebody
needed to know what she was taking and say, You shouldn't be taking
these two medicines in combination; they are hurting you. We didn't
have good coordination of care of my mom.
One of the things these nonprofits do is coordinate the care that is
provided to my mom or anybody's mom or dad. Another thing that would
have been very helpful for my mom or other people in that situation is
to have electronic health records. If my mom had an electronic health
record such as we have in the VA and like we are developing in Delaware
and some other States, when my mom went from doctor's office to
doctor's office they would know in each office who else she was seeing
and the medicines she was being prescribed, the lab tests and
everything. They would have it right there for her when she came for
her regular visit.
We have a great ability to harness information technology or
electronic health care records, which are a big part of that. Our
nonprofits I have talked about--the half dozen or so--have that in
common. On wellness and prevention, we know it is not just from
nonprofits but out in California is Safeway, and these people have
supermarkets all over America and several hundred thousand employees.
Their health care costs from 2004 to 2008 have been level and flat.
They have incentivized employees to do the right thing for themselves,
in terms of holding down their weight, helping them get off tobacco, to
fight obesity and

[[Page 18423]]

lethargy, to get off the sofa, and to eat what is right; and there are
antismoking campaigns and all kinds of stuff. So we have a good model
there to perform.
It is not just the nonprofits but a lot of employers are starting to
get into this as well.
There are another one or two points I will mention on the nonprofits.
On chronic disease management, such as heart disease and diabetes, I am
told that about 80 percent of the cost of these chronic diseases can be
controlled by four factors: diet, exercise, overweight/obesity, and
smoking. Those four factors control about 80 percent of the cost of our
expenditures on chronic care. If we work with those four items, we will
help reduce the costs and provide better outcomes for people. We will
also hold down our costs. There are a couple lessons from the
nonprofits and others. Part of it is pharmacy--making sure people who
need pharmaceutical medicines, small and large molecules, are taking
those, and somebody is checking to make sure they are taking what they
need.
Focusing on primary care, many of those people coming out of medical
schools want to be specialists. They are not interested in being
primary care doctors. We need more primary care doctors. We need to
change the incentives to get more primary care doctors, which is what
we need. Another idea is for us to pool insurance costs. As my
colleagues know, we have the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan. We
have an insurance pool where we pool all the Federal employees and
their dependents and the retirees and their dependents into one large
pool to purchase health insurance. They get it at a not cheap price but
a pretty good price. One of the reasons why is, when you have a lot of
people in the purchasing pool, you get a good variety and much better
costs. If you think about the administrative costs for health
insurance, as a percentage of premiums, I am told, in the Federal
Employee Health Benefit Program, it is about 10 percent. When it comes
to people buying individual policies and small businesses, their
administrative costs as a percentage of premiums are about 30 percent.
So the idea of creating large purchasing pools makes a whole lot of
sense.
I will close here. The idea that we would pass health care
legislation and stop extending coverage for people who don't have it--
if that is all we do, we have failed the American people. We have to do
at least two things. One is extend coverage but also make sure the
coverage we extend provides better coverage, better quality outcomes
and better health care and that we do so at a price that is diminished
and does not continue to expand by several times the rate of inflation.
We can do that going forward. That is what we need to do.
My friends have been generous in allowing me to proceed. I see
several Senators are anxious to get back into the debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the Senator from Kansas concerning North Korea.
I must say I was entertained by the outlook--as far as North Korea's
behavior is concerned--by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee. I can't remember when I have disagreed more.
The State Department's 2008 Country Reports on Terrorism stated that
``as part of the six-party talks process, the U.S. reaffirmed its
intent to fulfill its commitment regarding the removal of the
designation of the DPRK as a state sponsor of terrorism in parallel
with the DPRK's actions on denuclearization and in accordance with
criteria set forth by law.''
They certainly haven't taken any action on denuclearization, and it
certainly hasn't been in accordance with the criteria set forth by law.
There was a problem with this trade, however. We delisted North
Korea, and we got something worse than nothing. Facts are stubborn
things. In response to our action, Pyongyang has embarked on a pattern
of astonishing belligerence and has reversed even the previous steps it
had taken toward the denuclearization prior to its removal from the
terrorism list.
A few facts. In December 2008--just 2 months after the United States
removed Pyongyang from the list--North Korea balked at inspections of
its nuclear facilities and ceased disablement activities at the
Yongbyon reactor. In March, the regime seized two American journalists
near the China-North Korean border and subsequently sentenced them to
12 years of hard labor in the North Korean gulag. These are two
American citizens who may have strayed over a border. Does that mean
they are sentenced to 12 years of hard labor in the most harsh prison
camps in the world? What are we going to do about it? It is remarkable.
Two weeks later, it tested a long-range ballistic missile, in violation
of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and then announced it was
expelling international inspectors from Yongbyon, reestablishing the
facility, and ending North Korean participation in disarmament talks.
In May, Pyongyang conducted its second nuclear test; in June, a North
Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit cargo departed North Korea in
likely defiance of U.N. Security Council obligations; and earlier this
month, Pyongyang again launched short- and medium-range missiles into
the Sea of Japan, including on the Fourth of July.
All these are indications that the North Koreans somehow should not
be listed as terrorists? I think we ought to, frankly--I respect and
appreciate my friend from Kansas. Maybe we ought to have a binding
resolution, rather than a sense of the Senate. It is remarkable that
these events have taken place against a backdrop of belligerence and
intransigence by North Korea. Pyongyang has never accounted for or even
acknowledged its role in assisting the construction of a nuclear
reactor in Syria, which the Israelis had to bomb. Similarly, it has
refused to provide a complete and correct declaration of its nuclear
program. Of course, something we all know, which is one of the great
tragedies in the history of the world, is this is a gulag of some
200,000 people, where people are regularly beaten, starved, and
executed. According to the Washington Post, most of them work 12- to
15-hour days until they die of malnutrition-related illnesses, usually
at around the age of 50. They are allowed just one set of clothes. They
live and die in rags, without soap, socks, underclothes or sanitary
napkins. It is a horrible story.
It is not an accident that the average South Korean is several inches
taller than the average North Korean. This regime may be the most
repressive and oppressive and Orwellian in all the world today. So the
Chinese have been serious--according to Mr. Kerry, the Senator from
Massachusetts, the Chinese have been resolute on the issue of the ship
inspections. The U.N. Security Council resolution calls for monitoring
and following of the ship, and if the decision is made that they need
to board a North Korean ship, if the North Koreans refuse, then the
following ship cannot board but can follow them into a port, where the
port authorities are expected to board and inspect the vessel. And then
that violation is reported to the U.N. Security Council. That ought to
rouse some pretty quick action. I don't share the confidence of the
Senator from Massachusetts that if a North Korean ship goes into a port
at Myanmar, you will see likely action, except maybe the offloading of
whatever materials are being bought by Myanmar.
Look, the North Koreans have clearly been engaged in selling anything
they can to anybody who will buy it because they need the money--
whether it be drugs, counterfeit currency, nuclear technology or
missiles. Every time we have held onto the football, like Lucy, they
have pulled it away.
I think this is a very modest proposal of the Senator from Kansas. I
point out that years and years of six-party talks, different party
talks, negotiations, conversations, individuals who have been assigned
as chief negotiators who then end up somehow negotiating, with the end
being further negotiations, has failed.

[[Page 18424]]

If the North Koreans continue to test weapons, test missiles, sooner
or later, they will match a missile with a weapon that will threaten
the United States of America. Right now, those missiles they are
testing go over Japanese territory. I think it is pretty obvious we are
dealing with a regime of incredible and unbelievable cruelty and
oppression of their own people. The newly published Korean bar
association details the daily lives of the 200,000 political prisoners
estimated to be in the camps. Eating a diet of mostly corn and salt,
they lose their teeth, their gums turn black, their bones weaken and,
as they age, they hunch over at the waist.
This is a regime that, in any interpretation of the word, is an
outrageous insult to the world and everything America stands for and
believes in. I believe they will pose a direct threat, over time, to
the security of not only Asia but the world. They were able to export
technology all the way to Syria, obviously. Why should they not be able
to export that to other parts of the world?
I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment by the
Senator from Kansas, and I hope we can vote on that sooner rather than
later.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Bennett from Utah as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I thank my colleague from Arizona. I think he
understands more than anybody in this body the situation and what
happens in a gulag-type situation. That has drawn me to the topic of
North Korea for a couple years--the human rights abuses. Hundreds and
thousands of North Koreans are fleeing to be able to simply get food,
and a couple hundred thousand of them are in the gulag system. It is
unbelievable that this can happen in 2009. We have Google Earth that
can even show this. But we just say: OK, that is the sort of thing that
happens there. It is mind-boggling to me that we wouldn't act
resolutely.
I appreciate the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the
Senator from Massachusetts, who is a distinguished Senator and is very
bright and experienced in foreign policy. I could not disagree with him
more about North Korea. We have had an ongoing dialog and discussion
about this. He makes the point that we should not pop this on the bill.
I have been trying for months for us to relist them as terrorists.
They should not have been delisted in the first place. It was a
terrible process move on the Bush administration to try to move the
talks forward, saying we are going to delist you and you are going to
do something for us. Pyongyang and Kim Jong Il said thank you very
much, and now we are going to stick it in your face, which is what they
have continued to do. I have listed the things, as the Senator from
Arizona has mentioned as well.
The thought that we are acting resolutely, to me, is an insult to the
people in North Korea who have lived under this oppressive regime. We
are not acting resolutely toward North Korea. We are not putting any
sanctions on them. We have asked for international sanctions, but why
aren't we willing to put sanctions on ourselves? If we think this is
such a proper course to follow, and we are willing to push it on an
international body, why wouldn't we be willing to do it ourselves? Why
wouldn't we be willing to list them as a terror nation, as a state
sponsor of terror? I don't understand that; why, if it is good in the
international arena, we wouldn't do it ourselves.
Plus, we need to have teeth into this. This is a modest--a modest--
proposal. It is a resolution, a sense of the Senate that North Korea
should be relisted as a state sponsor of terrorism. We are not
relisting them. That is an administration call. We are saying we, as a
body, given the provocative actions that have taken place since they
have been delisted clearly merits the relisting of North Korea as a
state sponsor of terrorism. That is our opinion, and that is what we
are saying to the administration.
Without a foundation in the law, it is clearly--as I read
previously--allowed for the Secretary of State to determine that the
government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of
international terrorism. That is the actual wording of the law in the
Arms Export Control Act. Clearly, they have acted to sponsor
international terrorism with their relation with Burma, with the
missiles, with the nuclear weapons, and with the proliferation they
have done and continue to do.
He says, and is suggesting, that delisting has no practical effect. I
believe it does have a practical effect, and it certainly does on the
administration's stance toward North Korea and their international
posture toward North Korea. Plus, it has a practical effect on what we
can provide for as far as aid from the United States to North Korea. We
shouldn't be providing aid to the North Koreans. We should provide food
aid, if we can monitor it. We shouldn't be giving oil to the North
Koreans. That should be limited so the administration cannot do that.
They would not be able to if they are listed as a state sponsor of
terrorism.
Mr. President, it will hurt the people of North Korea and those who
are in the North Korean gulags if we don't relist them. It recovers any
vestige of hope they might have that at some point in time somebody of
enough stature, such as the United States Government, is going to take
enough notice that they are going to put pressure on the North Korean
regime. I have talked with some people who were refuseniks in the
Soviet Union, in a Soviet gulag during an era where we had far less
communication capacity than we do today, and yet they were able to get
messages at that point in time into the Soviet gulag that the Americans
were putting pressure on the Soviet Union and the lack of human rights
in the Soviet Union, and it gave them hope. It gave them hope in the
Soviet gulag.
If we can pass this, it can give people in the gulags in North Korea
hope that somebody is at least paying enough attention to put pressure
on this, and maybe they may be able to live longer, or actually live at
all. It can give them hope, instead of ``abandon hope all ye who enter
here,'' as it says at the entrance to Inferno and as it is in the gulag
system in North Korea.
So it is a modest resolution, and I would hope my colleagues would
vote overwhelmingly for this resolution to relist North Korea as a
state sponsor of terrorism.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Amendment No. 1528

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 1528 be called
up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], for himself,
Mr. Graham, Mr. Begich, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr.
Thune, proposes an amendment numbered 1528.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide authority to increase Army active-duty end
strengths for fiscal year 2010 as well as fiscal year 2011 and 2012)

Strike section 402 and insert the following:

SEC. 402. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY FOR INCREASES OF ARMY ACTIVE-
DUTY END STRENGTHS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2010, 2011,
AND 2012.

(a) Authority to Increase army Active-Duty End Strength.--
(1) Authority.--For each of fiscal years 2010, 2011, and
2012, the Secretary of Defense may, as the Secretary
determines necessary for the purposes specified in paragraph
(2), establish the active-duty end strength for the Army at a
number greater than the number otherwise authorized by law up
to the number equal to the fiscal-year 2010 baseline plus
30,000.
(2) Purpose of increases.--The purposes for which an
increase may be made in the active duty end strength for the
Army under paragraph (1) are the following:

[[Page 18425]]

(A) To increase dwell time for members of the Army on
active duty.
(B) To support operational missions.
(C) To achieve reorganizational objectives, including
increased unit manning, force stabilization and shaping, and
supporting wounded warriors.
(b) Relationship to Presidential Waiver Authority.--Nothing
in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of
the President under section 123a of title 10, United States
Code, to waive any statutory end strength in a time of war or
national emergency.
(c) Relationship to Other Variance Authority.--The
authority in subsection (a) is in addition to the authority
to vary authorized end strengths that is provided in
subsections (e) and (f) of section 115 of title 10, United
States Code.
(d) Budget Treatment.--
(1) In general.--If the Secretary of Defense increases
active-duty end strength for the Army for fiscal year 2010
under subsection (a), the Secretary may fund such an increase
through Department of Defense reserve funds or through an
emergency supplemental appropriation.
(2) Fiscal years 2011 and 2012.--(2) If the Secretary of
Defense plans to increase the active-duty end strength for
the Army for fiscal year 2011 or 2012, the budget for the
Department of Defense for such fiscal year as submitted to
Congress shall include the amounts necessary for funding the
active-duty end strength for the Army in excess of the
fiscal-year 2010 baseline.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Fiscal-year 2010 baseline.--The term ``fiscal-year 2010
baseline'', with respect to the Army, means the active-duty
end strength authorized for the Army in section 401(1).
(2) Active-duty end strength.--The term ``active-duty end
strength'', with respect to the Army for a fiscal year, means
the strength for active duty personnel of Army as of the last
day of the fiscal year.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce
this amendment with a bipartisan group of cosponsors. To state it
briefly, it extends the authorized end strength of the U.S. Army by
30,000 over the next 3 years, effective with the commencement of fiscal
year 2010. It doesn't mandate this increase, but it expands the
authority of the Secretary of Defense, obviously, with the support and
authorization of the President of the United States, the Commander in
Chief, to extend the end strength of the U.S. Army. End strength means
how many soldiers can the U.S. Army have. Of course, it does this to
reduce the tremendous stress on the U.S. Army, which is carrying the
burden of combat in two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan today, and over
the next year or 18 months will be in this unique position.
Progress has been made, thank God, in Iraq, and the Iraq Security
Forces are progressively taking over responsibility for keeping the
security in their country. The drawdown of American soldiers is
happening in a methodical and responsible way, and I again express my
appreciation to President Obama that it is happening in that way. At
the same time, we are increasing our troop presence in Afghanistan.
Bottom line: The demand for members of the U.S. Army on the battlefield
over the next year, 18 months, at the outside 2 years, is going up. If
the supply remains constant, that means the stress on every soldier in
the U.S. Army and his or her family will not be reduced. As a matter of
fact, it will go up. The term for this--which I will get to in a
minute--in the Army is ``dwell time.''
This is an amendment that began with members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and a comparable amendment in the House Armed
Services Committee, recognizing, as we all do, the tremendous stress
that our Army is under, the extraordinary job they are doing in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
This is really the next great generation of the American military.
But we see in it some tough statistics: the increase in mental health
problems, the increase in divorces of members of the service, and,
worse, of course, the increase in suicides.
There are many things we have supported in this Senate and the
Congress--and the administration has--to respond to each one of those
problems. But in a way, the most direct thing we can do is to increase
the size of the U.S. Army so there is less pressure on every soldier in
the Army, in this sense. Every time we add another soldier to the U.S.
Army--and we are talking about authorization to add 30,000 more--it
means that much more time every other member of the U.S. Army can spend
back at base retraining, preparing and, most important of all, spending
time with their families.
As I know the Presiding Officer knows--and I know the President of
the United States knows it too--the good news is that the Secretary of
Defense, Bob Gates, who has done and is doing an extraordinary job for
our country with, of course, the support and authorization of President
Obama, yesterday announced that he would be temporarily increasing the
Active-Duty end strength of the U.S. Army by 22,000 soldiers over the
course of the next 3 years.
I cannot sufficiently express my words of appreciation for Secretary
Gates's decision. He acted by employing the emergency authority he has
in an authorization of the use of force and a built-in statutory waiver
he has up to 3 percent of existing end strength to expand the size of
the Army. This amendment, which had been planned, and was in the
committee before this great action by Secretary Gates yesterday, is now
before us, and I am honored to offer this amendment with a bipartisan
group of cosponsors who are listed on this amendment as a way to do two
things: The first is that it literally increases from 547,000 to
577,000-plus the authorized end strength of the U.S. Army, and to leave
that authority there in case there is a need that Secretary Gates and
the President see in the coming 3 years to raise the number.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding that the amendment authorizes the
additional forces Secretary Gates said yesterday in his speech that we
need--or the day before yesterday. Why do we need to put this into the
bill?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Two reasons. The first is that it is a bit beyond what
Secretary Gates did. He authorized using the extraordinary powers he
possesses as Secretary in this time of conflict up to 22,000 for the
next 3 years. The amendment authorizes--doesn't mandate, doesn't
appropriate--30,000 for the next 3 years. So it gives some latitude,
depending on how conditions go in Iraq and Afghanistan, to go a bit
further--8,000 more, if necessary, over the next 3 years.
Second, I say to my friend from Arizona, when this amendment started,
we didn't know Secretary Gates was going to do this. I am grateful he
did, but this amendment now--frankly, as Secretary Gates himself said
to me yesterday, and I appreciate it and I don't think he would mind if
I repeated it on the Senate floor--gives the Senate and Congress the
opportunity to essentially vindicate and support the step that the
Secretary has made and, as he put it, send a message from the Senate to
the members of the U.S. Army that help is on the way.
Mr. McCAIN. And there is no doubt that the Army very badly needs the
help now and in the foreseeable future.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. My friend from Arizona is absolutely right. There is
no doubt, based on the demand, certainly temporarily, over the next 18
months, perhaps 2 years, as we are drawing down in Iraq, but not as
rapidly as we are adding forces in Afghanistan, that there is at least
a temporary need for more than the authorized 547,000 members of the
U.S. Army.
Mr. McCAIN. And if I could question the Senator further, perhaps this
would illuminate any requirement for stop loss or for involuntary
extensions in a combat area.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons
Secretary Gates gave yesterday I will read:

The decision to eliminate the routine use of ``stop loss''
authority in the Army requires a larger personnel flow for
each deploying unit to compensate for those whose contract
expires during the period of deployment.

So, yes, this makes it possible to end the use of stop loss, which is
essentially, in layman's terms, a way to require people to stay
actively deployed longer than they originally were going to be
deployed.

[[Page 18426]]

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Arizona. We have illuminated
most of the reasons in our exchange why this amendment is important. I
will simply add a few more things Secretary Gates said yesterday, which
is:

The army has reached a point of diminishing returns in
their multiyear program to reduce the size of its training
and support ``tail.''

That is the training and support which supports the Active-Duty Army.

The cumulative effect of these factors is that the Army
faces a period where its ability to continue to deploy combat
units at acceptable fill rates is at serious risk.

Here is the point I just made in response to Senator McCain's
question.

Based on current deployment estimates, this is a temporary
challenge--

A temporary point of stress. We hope and pray that is true. It
certainly looks like it is--

which will peak in the coming year and abate over the course
of the next 3 years.

Mr. President, in addition to the Secretary of Defense, we heard from
the Army's Chief of Staff, GEN George Casey, and Secretary of the Army
Pete Geren, who have been advocates within the Pentagon for this
increase in end strength, and I thank them for that. Admiral Mullen,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told our Armed Services Committee earlier
this year that the light at the end of the tunnel, as he put it, is
still more than 2 years away, and that is only if everything goes
according to plan, which in combat, obviously, often does not.
Again, I say this is an authorization; it is not a mandate. I will
add that Secretary Gates announced yesterday that he will find a way to
fund the additional troops in this year and fiscal year 2010--the one
that begins October 1--by reprogramming other funds appropriated to the
Pentagon for fiscal year 2011, which is the budget that will be
presented to us next year, if it is probable that the Department of
Defense will require funding as part of its normal operations, and more
likely as part of the OCO fund--the overseas contingency operation
fund--which supports our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I cannot say enough, I know all of us in the Senate believe we cannot
say enough, in gratitude to the members of the U.S. Army who are
leading the battle for us against the Islamic extremists and terrorists
who attacked us on 9/11/01. We owe them a debt we can never fully
repay.
One thing we can do, that Secretary Gates did yesterday and the
Senate can do in this amendment, is to send a message to our troops in
the field that help is on the way in the most consequential way, which
is additional members of the Army.
I ask that when the vote be taken, it be taken by the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Again I say to my colleagues I am doing that, although
I expect there will be very strong support for this, because I believe
it is the most visible way for this Senate to send the message to the
U.S. Army of appreciation and gratitude, to them and their families,
that help is on the way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me commend Senator Lieberman and others
who support this amendment. We in the Armed Services Committee are very
supportive of previous increases; indeed, we led the way on some of
them. Because of the stress on the Army and the number of commitments
which had been made in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must give the kind of
support to our troops they deserve and the American people want us to
give.
One of the ways we can reduce some of the stress is by increasing the
end strength so the dwell time is more sufficient and there are other
positive spinoffs as well from this kind of increase in the authorized
end strength.
The Secretary made a very powerful speech the other day when he
called for an increase of 22,000, I believe, in the end strength. That
end strength is temporary, it is almost as large as this--not quite;
this is 30,000, but this is surely in the ballpark. It is appropriate.
It is authority, it is not mandatory, and I think it is a very positive
signal to send to our men and women in uniform and to their families. I
very much support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, briefly I thank Senator Levin, the
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, not just for his strong
statement of support now but for the support he has given during our
committee's deliberations to the goal of achieving an increase in Army
end strength.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 1475

Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I am going to talk about an amendment we
have not yet cleared unanimous consent for it to be brought up. I am
hopeful that will come. But in order to advance the issue, I intend to
talk about my amendment, No. 1475, without offering it at this time. I
think it is an appropriate amendment to talk about at this point
following Senator Lieberman's amendment because his amendment deals
with increasing our forces.
One of the reasons it is important to do that is the stress that the
restricted numbers provide on our military personnel. Senator Lieberman
mentioned, and I will repeat, the number of suicides and attempted
suicides by our young men and women serving in the military has
increased and one of the reasons, frankly, is that the repeated
deployments and the length of the deployments have added to the stress
of our servicemen.
Health experts agree that there is most likely a combination of
factors leading to this increase in suicides. Many of these factors are
simply the results of the prolonged conflict that our Nation finds
itself in, including multiple deployments, extended separations from
family and loved ones, and the overwhelming stress of combat
experiences; each placing a unique and tremendous strain on the men and
women of our all-volunteer force.
But while Congress has recognized these strains, and acted to help
provide relief by increasing the size of our forces and thereby
reducing the number and frequency of deployments, we cannot as easily
remedy the stress or mental trauma created by combat experience.
For those who have had to witness the ugliness and devastation of war
first-hand, they have encountered something very unnatural for the
human mind to comprehend or accept. For these service members,
recovering from these experiences involves a long and arduous journey
in learning to identify, control and cope with a wide array of
emotions. And this learning process is often only accomplished with the
guidance and management of highly trained mental or behavioral health
specialists.
In this light, we in Congress have acted to increase funding for more
mental health providers and improved access for our troops and their
families, and we have sharpened the focus of the military on addressing
these care needs. That is very positive and has had a very positive
effect.
What we must now focus on, and direct the military's attention to, is
the potentially harmful practice of administering antidepressants to a
population that frequently moves throughout a theater of war and is
therefore susceptible to gaps in mental health management. We are not
certain they are getting the follow-up care they need.
A 2007 report by the Army's fifth Mental Health Advisory Team
indicated that, according to an anonymous

[[Page 18427]]

survey of U.S. troops, about 12 percent of combat troops in Iraq, and
17 percent of combat troops in Afghanistan, are taking prescription
antidepressants or sleeping pills to help them cope with this stress.
This equates to roughly 20,000 troops on such medications in theatre
right now.
What I find particularly troubling, when reviewing these figures, is
that the Pentagon has yet to establish an official clearinghouse that
accurately tracks this kind of data. In fact, the Army's best reported
estimate can only tell us that the authorized or prescribed drug use by
troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is believed to be evenly split between
antidepressants--mainly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or
SSRIs--and prescription sleeping pills. My amendment would provide us
with the information so we know what is happening with the use of these
drugs.
Providing that this best estimate contains some degree of accuracy,
it is important for us to also recognize that many of these same
antidepressants, after strong urging by the FDA, recently expanded
their warning labels to state that young adults--ages 18-24 years old--
may be at an elevated risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior while
using the medication. This same age group--18-24 years old--represents
41 percent of our military forces serving on the front lines in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
While keeping this warning label in mind, it is imperative that my
colleagues understand that nearly 40 percent of Army suicide victims in
2006 and 2007 are believed to have taken some type of antidepressant
drugs--and overwhelmingly these SSRIs. And as I mentioned at the
beginning of this statement, the number of Army suicides reported each
month are outpacing each preceding month.
This class of antidepressants--these SSRIs--are unlike most earlier
classes of psychiatric medications in that they were, from their
inception, specifically designed for use as an antidepressant --that
is, they were engineered to target a particular process in the brain
that plays a significant role in depression and other anxiety
disorders. More significantly, however, these SSRIs are unlike most
other antidepressant medications because they are still allowed by
Department of Defense policy to be prescribed to service members while
they are deployed and directly engaged in overseas operations.
Now, to be fair, there is widespread consensus in the community of
professional mental health providers, and empirical evidence to
support, that SSRIs do offer significant benefit for the treatment of
posttraumatic stress and some forms of depression. And although there
are some side effects, they are reportedly much milder and shorter in
duration than other antidepressants. Additionally, SSRIs are also
believed to potentially prevent, or at least some believe, lesson the
more harmful long-term effects of posttraumatic stress disorder.
My concern, however, and hopefully that of my Senate colleagues, is
not the long-term efficacy of these SSRIs, but more pointedly the
volume and manner in which these drugs are being administered to our
service men and women overseas.
You see, unlike medications that work on an as-needed basis, SSRIs
only begin to work after having been taken every day--at a specific
dosage--for a significant period of time. This frequently translates to
a 3 to 6 week latency period before the therapeutic effect materializes
and patients begin to feel improvement. In light of the population I
have been discussing, there are two very readily apparent problems with
this shortcoming--first, is that service members serving in forward
operating areas, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, are quite frequently
subject to moving between bases or into other areas--some so remote
that there may be no trained mental health provider available to
administer the treatment and to make sure it is effective.
Second, and more importantly, is that this initial period is when
patients, particularly younger patients, often suffer an escalation in
the severity of depression and/or anxiety.
In essence, DOD may be prescribing SSRIs to its service members,
without the assurance that they will remain in a capacity to be
observed by a highly trained mental health provider. Worse yet, these
same patients may very likely find themselves ordered off to conduct
combat operations during this same latency period.
Let's return our focus back to the alarming increase in the number of
military and veteran suicides reported in 2008 and 2009.
At what point do we step forward to direct that action be taken by
DOD to capture, track and report this data? And at what point do we
ensure that DOD is properly prescribing, dispensing and administering
these drugs to our troops without having in place the necessary
controls and or patient management practices?
As a first step in this direction, the amendment I intend to
introduce will accomplish a better understanding as to the potential
magnitude of this issue. This amendment directs the Department of
Defense to capture, at a macro level--at a macro level, not individual
information, without divulging or violating any protected patient
health information--the volume and types of antidepressants,
psychotropics or antianxiety drugs being prescribed to our men and
women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will also require DOD,
beginning in June of 2010 and then annually thereafter through 2015, to
report to Congress an accurate percentage of those troops currently and
previously deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2005 who have been
prescribed these types of drugs.
I wish to reiterate that this measure specifically directs the
disclosure of this information by DOD to be done in such a way as to
not violate the individual patient privacy rights of our service men or
women as defined by HIPAA.
This legislation further directs DOD to contact the National
Institute of Mental Health and provide any and all data as determined
necessary by the Institute to conduct a scientific peer reviewable
study to determine whether these types of prescriptions, and/or the
method in which they are being prescribed and administered by DOD, are
in any way contributing to the rising number of suicides by
servicemembers or Iraq or Afghanistan veterans.
I want to specifically address one issue I have heard from some who
express concern about this amendment by saying it would stigmatize, in
the eyes of our troops, those seeking mental health care. Nothing could
be further from what this amendment does. This amendment would collect
information in an anonymous manner, and it will be invisible to the
servicemembers serving on the front line.
The men and women serving in our military, and equally so their
families, deserve our utmost assurance that we are doing everything in
our power to see that our Nation's warfighters are provided the best
medical care available. An integral part of our commitment must also be
to ensure that these service men and women volunteering to serve our
Nation are not being exposed to what may potentially endanger them when
they seek medical care and mental health service.
This amendment is very simple. It asks us to gather information so we
can make a judgment in a macro sense, without violating the individual
privacy of our service men and women. It allows us to gather the
information, to have the best information. This Congress has a proud
record of providing the necessary resources for the health care of our
warriors and their families.
This amendment will complement that by making sure that we have the
analytical tools to make sure we are providing the right type of mental
health services to our service men and women who are in theater. It
gets us the information in order to judge what is being done today.
I would hope my colleagues would agree that we would want to have
this information, and I hope at a later time I will have the
opportunity to actually offer the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. First of all, let me commend the Senator from Maryland on

[[Page 18428]]

his amendment. I support it. I hope it can be cleared or placed in
order so that we can adopt it on a rollcall if it cannot be cleared.

Amendment No. 1528

I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed to a vote on the
Lieberman amendment, a rollcall vote on the Lieberman amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from
Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter),
and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. Crapo).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg.]

YEAS--93

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--1

Feingold

NOT VOTING--6

Byrd
Crapo
Kennedy
Mikulski
Specter
Webb
The amendment (No. 1528) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy
be added as a cosponsor on the amendment which we just adopted, the
Lieberman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1688

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise in support of this vital
amendment in order to correct disparities among the Small Business
Administration's, SBA, small business contracting programs. Building on
my efforts to bring true parity to the programs, this amendment will
create a more equitable and flexible method for Federal agencies to
fairly allocate Federal procurement dollars to small business
contractors across the Nation. Earlier this year, I offered an
amendment, cosponsored by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to
create parity as part of S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform
Act of 2009. Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted.
For years it has been unclear to the acquisition community what, if
any, is the true order of preference when determining which small
business contracting program is at the top of the agency's priority
list. The SBA's regulations state that there is parity among the
programs, and this had been the general practice in effect until two
Government Accountability Office decisions were released on September
19, 2008, and May 4, 2009.
The decisions stated that the Historically Underutilized Business
Zone--HUBZone--program had preference over all other small business
contracting programs. While the interpretation benefits HUBZone
businesses, it comes at the expense of other vital small business
contracting programs. This targeted amendment provides equity for the
SBA's small business contracting programs.
The amendment provides Federal agencies with the necessary
flexibility to satisfy their government-wide statutory small business
contracting goals. This amendment makes clear to purchasing agencies
that contracting officers may award contracts to HUBZone, service-
disabled veterans, 8(a), or women-owned firms with equal deference to
each program. It would provide these agencies with the ability to
achieve their goaling requirements equally through an award to a
HUBZone firm, a service-disabled veteran-owned small business, and a
small business participating in the 8(a) business development program.
And of course this list will also include women-owned small businesses
once the women's procurement program is fully implemented by the SBA.
In addition, this amendment brings the SBA's contracting programs
closer to true parity by giving HUBZones a subcontracting goal.
HUBZones are the only small business contracting program without a
subcontracting goal. In addition, the amendment authorizes mentor
protege programs modeled after those used in the 8(a) program for
HUBZones, service-disabled veteran and women-owned firms.
The essence of true parity is where each program has an equal chance
of competing and being selected for an award. During these difficult
economic times, it is imperative that small business contractors
possess an equal opportunity to compete for federal contracts on the
same playing field with each other.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment.

amendment no. 1500

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to support the section 1072
of S. 1390, National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. This section
authorizes the Comptroller General of the United States to assess
military whistleblower protections.
As everyone knows, I strongly believe whistleblowers play an
important role in the accountability of all government. This should
also be true for the men and women who wear uniforms and serve in the
Armed Forces.
In 1988, Congress passed legislation that gave members of the armed
services unique whistleblower protections. Despite this military
whistleblower law, I have concerns that military whistleblowers could
be underserved by the regulations and processes created by the
Department of Defense, DOD, and the DOD, Office of Inspector General,
OIG.
During the course of my own investigation of several military
whistleblower cases, I learned some matters which may question how
effectively military whistleblower reprisal cases are handled by the
DOD and DOD OIG. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has noted
in its past work that the effectiveness of the Federal protection for
military whistleblowers rests principally on a two-stage process of
investigation and administrative review. The first stage involves a
DOD, service, or guard inspector general's investigation of the
specific facts and interpretation of issues associated with a
whistleblower reprisal allegation. In the second stage of the
investigation/administrative review process, the DOD OIG reviews and
approves the findings of the service or guard inspectors general. This
review is designed to provide assurance that the findings and
recommendations in a report were made in compliance with applicable
investigatory guidelines and meet legal sufficiency. The second stage
of this procedure is crucial for the military whistleblower process to
work as intended.
In addition to the tasking included in S. 1390, the military
whistleblower reprisal appeal process should be examined by the GAO as
well. The military

[[Page 18429]]

whistleblower law, 10 USC Sec. 1034, gives the Boards for the
Correction of Military Records--BCMR--of each armed service the appeal
authority in these often unique and complex matters. I believe the
report requested by the underlying bill is important and I support its
inclusion. However, it is important for the GAO to also study the
effectiveness of the BCMR appeal process to ensure military
whistleblowers are afforded a fair administrative process to combat
reprisal.
Last year, I first introduced the idea of a GAO military
whistleblower study when I requested this work of the Acting
Comptroller General Gene L. Dodaro in a letter dated July 18, 2008. I
followed up on my letter to the GAO with a legislative proposal through
a filed amendment to the Defense Department appropriations bill for
2009 which instructed the GAO to conduct a comprehensive analysis of
this issue. Unfortunately, that amendment did not make it through the
legislative process. I thank Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain
for including this sensible military whistleblower study in the current
bill.
Accordingly, I offer this latest amendment to include a review and
analysis of the military whistleblower reprisal appeals heard by the
Boards for the Correction of Military Records.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 authorizes almost $680 billion for the Department of
Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy.
The bill provides pay and health care to servicemembers and their
families; funds troops with the equipment and resources they need to
fight and provide security; strengthens our ability to train foreign
militaries and protect against IEDs and rogue nuclear threats; and
terminates questionable weapons programs.
It also includes legislation to complete the James A. Lovell Federal
Health Care Center in Illinois.
It gives the VA and the Navy the authority they need to finalize a
model partnership between the North Chicago VA Medical Center and the
Naval Health Clinic Great Lakes.
This is a model that the Departments hope can be replicated around
the country.
Combining separate Federal hospitals will provide better care for our
servicemembers and veterans while saving valuable taxpayer dollars.
Given the conflicts we face abroad, this bill provides the right
amount to spend in support of our troops. Today, the United States is
the world's leader in defense spending. Last year, U.S. military
spending accounted for almost half of the world's total military
spending. We spend more than the next 46 countries combined. U.S.
military spending, combined with that of our close allies, makes up 72
percent of all military spending in the world. Our defense budget is
six times larger than China's and 100 times larger than Iran's.
These funds make good on a promise to our men and women in our
military. Our troops continue to do everything we ask of them in the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. These conflicts have taken an
extraordinary toll on servicemembers and their families that we cannot
forget.
The Armed Forces, particularly the Army and the Marine Corps, will
continue to be heavily stressed, even as we start to redeploy our
forces from Iraq. Servicemembers still do not have enough dwell time
between deployments and the Army has seen a troubling rise in the
number of suicides. These are indications of the strain that multiple
and continued deployments are taking on the force. The President
requested increasing the size of the Army to 547,400 soldiers and
increasing the Marine Corps to 202,100 Marines, while preventing cuts
in Navy and Air Force personnel. This bill supports the President's
request. It also authorizes an additional 30,000 soldiers in 2011 and
2012, should the Secretary of Defense believe such troops are
necessary. Additional soldiers and marines will help ease the burdens
caused by multiple deployments.
More personnel will give each service more breathing room to care for
its wounded warriors. Others can continue the fight while injured and
ill servicemembers can recover in wounded transition units.
This legislation creates a task force to assess the policies and
programs that support the care and transition of recovering wounded and
seriously ill members of the Armed Forces. The task force will consider
whether servicemembers have sufficient access to care for posttraumatic
stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, the signature injury of the
wars. It will look at how well we help injured warriors transition from
the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The task force will also review the support available to family
caregivers as they care for recovering injured and seriously ill
members of the Armed Forces. For every servicemember successfully
recovering from a serious injury or illness, there is often a family
member who has put the brakes on his or her life to care for that
person.
Last week, my office received a call from the family of Jordan Hoyt,
a soldier from Barry, IL. He was seriously injured in Afghanistan and
is receiving care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center here in
Washington. His wife Haley has moved to Washington to be near Jordan
while he goes through months of surgery and rehabilitation. She has
brought with her their infant child, who was born while Jordan was away
serving his country. Haley is from Quincy. She has left her family
behind to help Jordan recover from his injury. She has also delayed her
educational plans to study criminal justice. Haley is 19 years old.
After Jordan leaves Walter Reed, the couple will return to Quincy to
live with her mother, who has already provided them with incredible
support. While taking care of wounded servicemembers is our basic
responsibility, we also need to support the families whose lives have
been up-ended by the wars. I commend the committee for including this
task force to look at the needs of family caregivers.
This President inherited many challenges at home and abroad,
including two wars and a challenging situation in Pakistan. This bill
supports President Obama's new direction in addressing these
priorities. In June, our military redeployed from Iraq's cities under
the Status of Forces Agreement concluded by the government of Iraq and
the previous administration. The Iraqis must continue to take
responsibility for their own future.
I commend the President's increased focus on defense and development
in Afghanistan; preventing the reemergence of the Taliban and al-Qaida;
and strengthening economic, agricultural, educational, and democratic
development. These goals are important to development in Afghanistan,
but they are essential to our military's strategy. I support the
National Defense Authorization Act and commend Chairman Levin and
Senator McCain for their leadership.
Almost 3,000 soldiers from the Illinois Army National Guard are
currently deployed to Afghanistan. Members of the Illinois Guard's 33rd
Infantry Brigade Combat Team are helping train the Afghan National
Police and providing force protection at military bases. It has been a
difficult deployment, with many casualties. Gen William Enyart, the
Adjutant General of Illinois, has had to attend the funerals of too
many of his soldiers. He sent me an article he had written this spring.
Why do the young soldiers serve, he asked? This is what he wrote. They
serve because:

They are our kids, they are our protectors. They are what
stand between us and chaos. They don't have to be asked to
serve. They don't have to be asked to go into danger. They do
it, not out of hate, not out of vengeance, but out of love.
Love of family, love of community, love of fellow soldier.

I think he is right. Members of the Armed Forces and their families
make these sacrifices to keep our country safe. We owe them much in
return. This bill takes one step by providing them the resources they
need. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and to send it to
the President for his signature.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

[[Page 18430]]

proceed to a period of morning business, with Senator Hatch to be
recognized for 15 minutes, then Senator Murray for 8 minutes, then
Senator Burris for 6 minutes, and Senator Brown for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there will be, then, no more amendments we
will be able to take up tonight on the Defense authorization bill. We
will pick up that bill tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

____________________

GUANTANAMO BAY

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about the
administration's failure to make the deadline of issuing a report on
the Guantanamo detainee policy. Today's deadline, similar to the
January 2010 closure deadline, was self-imposed. It concerns me that
the administration maintains that closure will occur even though the
execution of this process has been less than stellar.
In January, on his very first full day in office, President Obama
signed the order to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in 12
months. The President created separate task forces to examine closure
and detainee issues. These task forces were developed and staffed by
the Obama administration to achieve successful closure in 1 year. The
product of this review is to include a report on a broader detainee
policy.
Today marks the first deadline in this process. It was set to be the
date of release and publication of the task force report on a broader
detainee policy going forward. The administration's failure to meet the
deadline appears to me to be the ``canary in the coal mine'' that a
January closure of Guantanamo without a detailed plan is an exercise in
futility.
Yet the White House downplays the missed deadline and publicly states
that the January closure is still on track. Is it? Despite not having a
plan and missing a deadline for a key integral part of the closure
process, the administration claims it can still meet the overall
deadline of closure by January 1. I find that notion suspect at best
and completely absurd at worst.
In May, a Gallup Poll indicated that 65 percent--65 percent--of
Americans oppose the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
Even so, the administration intends to follow its timeline and close
Guantanamo by January 2010. The task force examining the cases of the
remaining 229 detainees has only reviewed half the necessary caseload
thus far.
The Justice Department hopes to complete its review by an October
reporting deadline, but that benchmark is quickly slipping away too.
This review process has taken twice the amount of time the
administration thought it would take. Yet keeping Guantanamo open
beyond January is inexplicably still not an option in the
administration's view.
Recently, media reports are circulating that the administration's
Guantanamo closure plan has been fraught with political miscalculation
and internal dissension. Moreover, the complex nature of this issue
will undoubtedly force the transfer of detainees inside the United
States. Since the announcement of the President's intention to close
Guantanamo, I have joined other Senators in pointing out the lack of
planning and clear miscalculation of this decision. That pool has grown
and a groundswell of bipartisan support is signaling the White House to
``pump the brakes.''
In May, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to strip out funding in the fiscal
year 2010 war spending request that would authorize $80 million for the
transfer of detainees to the interior of the United States of America.
Now that the failure to meet this deadline has been reported by outlets
such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times,
the administration still does not get it. Senior administration
officials are letting hubris get in the way. This is neither the proper
manner nor the time to close Guantanamo.
There should have been more study of this issue prior to setting us
on a course for closure. It is easy to say that Guantanamo can be
closed when you are a candidate for President. It is even easier to
sign an order on your very first full day in office as President that
says in 12 months Guantanamo will close. What is hard is taking a
deliberative, methodical approach and then formulating the proper plan
to balance the safety of this country with the needs of lawful
detention. Had the administration conducted a careful and thorough
review of this issue, the conclusion would have been that Guantanamo
fulfills both requirements. Instead, the administration has painted
itself into a corner.
Clearly, the administration miscalculated and underestimated the
depth and breadth of this issue. From the onset, the administration has
tried to reverse-engineer the process for closing Guantanamo--starting
from the end and working backward. If changes are not made immediately,
administration officials will force this issue on American cities and
towns in just 185 days. They will limp across the finish line. We have
185 days until Guantanamo is closed. The days until the plan is
released ARE a big question mark. They are going to limp across the
finish line on January 22, 2010, and herald their accomplishments a
victory despite its ill-conceived planning and Three Stooges-like
manner of execution.
Guantanamo is still an asset to this country. It complies with
international treaties and exceeds the standards of domestic
corrections facilities. I don't see how anyone who is honest about this
matter can characterize it in any other way, especially when there is
not a sufficient replacement located domestically to meet the Justice
Department's needs. It is my fervent hope that the President and
Attorney General will reconsider their ill-considered plan to close
Guantanamo and recognize the obvious, that a $200 million facility that
is already operational and in compliance with international treaties
should not be shuttered.
This is an important issue. I don't think the American people are
going to stand to have these very dangerous people brought on shore to
our country when we have a $200 million facility that meets
international treaty obligations sitting there doing the job. I think
the administration needs to get this work done and needs to get it done
the right way.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Udall of Colorado). The Senator from
Washington is recognized.

____________________

HEALTH CARE REFORM

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago I sent a letter to families
across my home State of Washington asking for their help as we reform
our broken health care system. I told them I wanted to pass a plan that
protects existing coverage when it is good, improves it when it is not,
and guarantees care for the millions who have none. I asked them to
share their stories with me and ideas about how to make this vision a
reality. I told them that I know health care is a very personal issue,
but also that personal stories have the power to change minds and
transform debates. The response to my request has been simply
overwhelming.
I wish to share some of the stories that have been pouring into my
office--over 5,000 so far--because they underscore not only the
desperate need to fix our broken health care system but also the dire
necessity to get it done this year.
For too many families today, health care reform can't wait. I wish to
share a story from a letter I received from Rita from Seattle who sent
me a story about her sister Janet. Janet was unemployed and had lost
her health insurance when her throat began to hurt one day back in
2004. She paid out of her own pocket to visit a health clinic and was
sent home with antibiotics. Well, weeks later, she was still in a lot
of pain and finally managed to get an appointment with a specialist,
but she was told she had to wait 6 weeks more

[[Page 18431]]

to come in to get help. Only after begging them for an appointment was
she seen by the specialist 3 days later and was told that the pain she
had been living with was in the late stages of an aggressive form of
throat cancer. Janet died not long after that. It was a death that
would have been prevented had she been able to see a specialist
earlier.
Janet is not alone. A woman by the name of Kathleen from Puyallup,
WA, sent in a story about her friend Kelly. Kelly had just been laid
off from work when she came down with what she thought was the flu. She
didn't have any health insurance because she had been laid off from her
job and she couldn't afford to go to the doctor, so she waited. Two
weeks later she felt even worse, so she finally made an appointment to
go in for a checkup. Kelly never made it to the doctor. Her 7-year-old
son found her dead on the couch on the morning she was supposed to go
in. She died from an untreated ovarian cyst. Because Kelly didn't have
health insurance, that little boy no longer has a mother.
I think the fact that these stories are possible in the greatest and
richest country in the world is simply shameful. No son should lose a
mother simply because she can't afford care. No family should have to
watch a loved one suffer because insurance companies instead of doctors
are making the decisions. That is why we so badly need to reform our
health care system this year.
Our country has been working on this issue for over 60 years and we
have spent months and months this session alone working to put together
a reform package that works for all Americans. We have had over 6
months of hearings. We went through over 50 hours of public markups. We
debated over 200 amendments. So when I hear some of my colleagues from
across the aisle saying we should slow down, saying we should take more
time, or that we are trying to reform health care too fast, and when I
see some of them shrugging off every attempt we have made at engaging
them and bringing them into the process, I think of Kelly and I think
of Janet and I think of all of the families out there right now with
sick husbands or sick wives or sick kids. I think of all the small
business owners I have talked to who can't cover their employees. I
think of the people who have coverage, but are worried about losing it
today in this uncertain economy. I think about all the working
Americans who are paying a hidden tax today in the form of rising
premiums in order to cover those Americans who don't have access to
care. As a mother and as a Senator, I say enough is enough.
Yesterday we heard some pretty ugly and blatant rhetoric. One Member
of the Senate who wants to protect the status quo, who doesn't want to
make any changes, said: ``If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will
be his Waterloo. It will break him.''
That is playing games with real lives in order to score cheap
political points. Bucking health care reform isn't going to break the
President of the United States. It will break American families. It
will break American businesses. It is going to break the bank.
Americans deserve better. The families of Janet and Kelly and the
thousands of others who have written me deserve better. We can't play
politics with what is most important to our Nation's families--the
health of their loved ones.
They say justice delayed is justice denied. Well, health care delayed
is often health care denied. It was denied to Kelly, it was denied to
Janet, and it gets denied to more Americans every single day we wait.
I call on all of our colleagues here in the Senate to work with us to
rise above partisanship. We have a good plan right now. We are working
to listen and bring everybody in and make it better. It will rein in
the costs with the goal of lowering them across the long term. It will
make sure all Americans have high quality, affordable coverage.
This issue is not going to go away if we don't do anything. It is not
going to get better or easier if we wait. In fact, today, costs are
rising at an unsustainable rate for those who do have insurance and
more and more Americans are losing their insurance every day.
We have been talking about reforming the health care system for a
very long time. I go home to my home State of Washington every weekend,
and I am asked often now if it is the right time to tackle health care
reform. In these difficult and challenging economic times when people
are worried about paying their bills, worried about losing their jobs,
worried about what is coming around the corner, they ask me if we are
biting off more than we can chew. I tell them: This is exactly the time
we need to act. Premiums are rising three times faster than wages
today. Every day, 14,000 more Americans lose their health insurance. In
these already difficult times, I don't want to add losing health
insurance to the list of concerns our families have to deal with every
day.
We know the current system is unsustainable. Even those people with
good coverage today are faced with massive costs and rising premiums.
That is why tackling this problem now has to be part of our long-term
economic recovery program.
Without health care reform, family budgets are going to continue to
be strapped, more Americans are going to lose their care, and we are
going to hear more stories like Janet and Kelly. I hope we can put
aside the partisan rhetoric, I hope we can put aside the talk of: Slow
this down; it is too fast. This issue is imperative, and I urge my
colleagues to act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

____________________

CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
opposition to Senator Thune's amendment regarding concealed carry
reciprocity. This legislation ignores the explosion of gun crime
plaguing America's cities and putting an unnecessary burden on local
law enforcement.
In my home State of Illinois, an entire generation of young people,
many of whom live in urban areas, is being decimated with gun violence.
On May 10 of 2007, a 16-year-old honor student named Blair Holt was
shot to death while riding a Chicago city bus. When the shooter opened
fire, Blair was shot while protecting a young girl with whom he was
riding. The shooter was also a 16-year-old boy and an admitted member
of the Gangster Disciples national street gang. Just the other day,
justice was presented to him when he was given 100 years in prison by
the judge.
Similar tragic stories have only grown more frequent. In the first 6
months of 2009, Chicago alone logged 202 homicides, 84 percent of whom
were shot to death. In comparison, in the same period of time, we lost
101 troops in Iraq and 99 in Afghanistan.
The people of Chicago deserve better than life in a war zone.
Hundreds of Chicago public school students have been shot so far this
year. By the end of the school year in June, at least 36 had died.
Over the Fourth of July weekend, while most of us celebrated our
Nation's independence, Chicago suffered through an almost unparalleled
torrent of gun violence: 63 shootings were tallied, and 11 of them were
fatal.
The carnage on Independence Day weekend led the Chicago Tribune to
demand on July 10: ``Where is our courage? Where is the indignation
over the slaughter of Chicago's children?''
This is far too high a price to pay for inaction. I will say it
again: The people of Chicago deserve better than life in a war zone.
Students deserve better than being gunned down in the streets after
school and parents deserve better than having to raise families in the
midst of a bloodbath. We must work vigorously to combat the rampant gun
violence in our cities and urban areas.
As a registered gun owner myself, I respect the second amendment and
responsible gun ownership. However, I am deeply concerned about the
devastating consequences of guns falling into the wrong hands. To this
end, I strongly believe we should keep firearms out of the hands of
children, terrorists, and criminals, and in solving

[[Page 18432]]

this problem we need to provide local law enforcement officials with
the support they so desperately need.
Concealed carry regulation is an issue best left to cities and States
and not the Federal Government. It is our job as Federal legislators to
enact measures that strengthen States' law enforcement efforts instead
of arbitrarily increasing their burden. A national standard of
reciprocity would ignore the challenges local law enforcement struggles
with on a daily basis when combating gangs and drug dealers in big
cities.
I am not alone in my opposition to the Thune amendment. I join the
International Association of Chiefs of Police and State lawmakers
around the country in recognizing that this legislation would severely
hamper efforts to combat gun crime in our Nation's urban areas.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 letters from the the
mayor of the city of Chicago, Mayor Daley, and the Major Cities Chiefs
Association be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Office of the Mayor,

Chicago, IL, July 17, 2009.
Hon. Roland W. Burris,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Burris: I am writing to express the City of
Chicago's strong opposition to Senator Thune's amendment
regarding concealed carry reciprocity, and to urge you to
vote against this amendment as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (S. 1390).
Although the State of Illinois would not be affected
directly by its passage, this amendment runs the possible
risk of reinforcing current movements in the Illinois
legislature to pass concealed-carry laws, which would greatly
set back Chicago's efforts to curtail gun violence. Concealed
carry regulation is an issue best left to cities and states,
and not the Federal government. A national standard of
reciprocity would ignore the challenges local law enforcement
struggle with on a daily basis when combating gangs and drug
dealers in big cities.
Pasasge of this amendment would limit the ability of states
and local governments to protect their citizens with common-
sense and community-specific laws and regulations regarding
the carrying of hidden handguns. It would promote gun
trafficking by making it easier to transport firearms between
states without the fear of being apprehended by law
enforcement. The bill would also endanger the safety of our
police officers by making it more difficult to distinguish
between legal and illegal gun possession--ambiguity that
would have life or death consequences.
The City of Chicago continues to do all it can to protect
our communities from the gun violence of gangs and drug
dealers. It is a tireless effort that requires the
involvement of the community members, the hard work of local
law enforcement and sensible policy decisions made at all
levels of government. The Thune amendment would serve as an
obstacle to these efforts, and that is why I strongly urge
you to oppose this potentially debilitating legislation.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Daley,
Mayor.
____

Major Cities Chiefs Association,

July 17, 2009.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, Hart Office Bldg., U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, Cannon Office Bldg., House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of
the Major Cities Chiefs, I am writing to express our strong
opposition to S. 845 and H.R. 1620, the Respecting States
Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2009. Because
we are responsible for public safety in the largest
jurisdictions in the United States, we recognize that this
legislation would be an enormous mistake.
This misguided legislation would undermine efforts by law
enforcement agencies across the Nation and thwart measures
already enacted by the states. Please know that we stand with
the more than 400 Mayors who have objected to this ill-
conceived proposal.
An oversimplification of carefully reasoned standards and
licensing provisions, the proposed measure would arbitrarily
overturn laws which have been tailored to the needs of
regions and local communities. Passage of this legislation
would be an affront to Federalism as it would force a state
to accept permits from other jurisdictions--whether or not
the permits comport with the laws of that state.
We are confident that members of Congress will respect the
authority of states, counties and cities to adopt their own
regulations regarding weapons and will not act with disregard
for the many reasonable and prudent laws already in place
across the Nation.
Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs call upon you to vote against
this dangerous and unconstitutional legislation.
All the best,

William J. Bratton,

Chief of Police, Los Angeles, CA,
President, Major Cities Chiefs' Association.

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, as I said earlier, cities in every State
face unique challenges that require tailored solutions. This is never
truer than with the issue of gun control. It is imperative that States
set their own standards for concealed carry permits and are not
obligated to honor permits awarded elsewhere with different,
potentially less rigorous requirements. We must not tie the hands of
State governments regarding their ability to protect and serve their
citizens.
I think that this legislation moves our national gun policy in the
wrong direction. In their assessment of the recent gun violence, the
Tribune opined that ``The tragic loss of brave soldiers killed overseas
grabs media headlines and fuels the raging fires of political debate.
Meanwhile, in another war right here in our own backyard, the killings
continue, almost ignored.''
We cannot ignore this horrific situation any longer. We must not be
conned into believing that easier access to firearms will reduce
firearm deaths. Rather than making it easier for people to bring
concealed weapons into other States, I hope my colleagues will get
serious about addressing the urgent problem of gun crime in our cities
and among our youth.
I urge my fellow Senators to not only vote against this amendment but
to join me in working towards a real solution for this senseless cycle
of death.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

____________________

CONGRATULATING YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate the community and
business leaders of Youngstown, OH, for showing the rest of the Nation
what so many of us in Ohio already know: Youngstown is one of the
Nation's best places to start a business.
I have held some 140 community roundtables across Ohio's 88 counties
at least once since I have been in the Senate, where I have met with
educators, students, community and business leaders, and entrepreneurs
and workers.
I have held a half dozen roundtables in the Mahoning Valley,
including two in Youngstown, and have traveled across towns along the
Mahoning River and across its valley.
From the autoworker in Lordstown to the electrician in Warren, to the
technology entrepreneur in Youngstown, to the small business owner in
Salem, I am impressed by their unwavering commitment to rebuilding this
region.
Youngstown remains a great city in the face of many challenges, and
its dedicated and talented workforce is driving today's innovation and
ingenuity.
Each time I visit Youngstown, I learn something new--from Mayor
Williams, the fine, aggressive, very bright, young mayor of Youngstown,
to Chamber of Commerce leader Tom Humphries, to dozens of teachers,
small business people, workers, and citizens.
It is easy to see why Entrepreneur Magazine lists Youngstown as one
of the top 10 U.S. cities to start a business. On the cover it says:
``Youngstown, Ohio, anyone?''
In their August issue, Entrepreneur Magazine describes Youngstown as
a ``dreamer,'' where technology innovation is driving job growth and
sustaining economic activity.
Bold plans and visionary leadership have set the stage for sustained
economic growth. Youngstown's healthy dose of all-American grit and
hard work will turn economic potential into economic reality, driving
regional economic expansion that can strengthen Ohio's middle class.
It takes what Entrepreneur Magazine called a ``concept revolutionary
enough to help ignite a renaissance in this small city.''

[[Page 18433]]

It takes a community that understands a transformation must take
place from within--from the educators to innovators, from community
activists to the industry leaders. Faced with a choice, it takes the
foresight to invest in the future and not dwell on the sometimes
troubled past.
Today, we are seeing the results of a decade-long process of renewal
and rebirth for Youngstown, in Warren, and the entire Mahoning Valley.
More than a year ago, I made my first trip to the Youngstown Business
Incubator, which is an example of community and business leaders
nurturing startup companies that can strengthen the regional economy.
Nurtured in the Youngstown Business Incubator in 2002, Turning
Technologies, for example, has become one of the fastest growing
technology companies in the Nation, according to Entrepreneur Magazine.
This is no accident. Mike Broderick, from Turning Technologies, and
other emerging businesses, say they have relied on the affordable
startup costs, accessible resources, the transportation network that
criss-crosses western Pennsylvania and Ohio, and the community
involvement that allowed businesses to thrive.
An important part of Youngstown's favorable business climate is
access to talented workers and students. Kent State's Trumbull campus
is a model for workforce training among Ohio's colleges and
universities. Their educators are training a legion of highly skilled
workers for Ohio's emerging high-tech industry.
But more must be done to close the gap between high unemployment in
that part of Ohio. My whole State is still afflicted by high
unemployment and this terrible recession. More must be done to close
the gap between the high unemployment and the shortage of skilled
workers and emerging industries.
Congressman Tim Ryan, with whom the Presiding Officer and I both
served in the House of Representatives, and who represents Youngstown
in the House, and I recently introduced the Strengthening Employment
Clusters to Organize Regional Success, or SECTORS Act.
SECTORS would help allow businesses, workforce development boards,
labor unions, and community colleges to connect skilled workers with
workforce and community needs. We will see that with Youngstown State
University in Youngstown, and with the Trumbull County branch of Kent
State University.
SECTORS is not only a jobs skill bill, but an economic development
bill. It is only one part of the citywide strategy to harness the
talented workforce and students.
Youngstown State University is training engineers and contributing to
workforce needs of an emerging advanced materials sector, involving
advanced chemical and composite engineering and nanotechnology. I have
seen some of this technology in the Mahoning Valley, and it is ready to
take off.
YSU's science, technology, engineering, and math program, or STEM,
teaches students the critical skills in the fields of advanced
sciences, information technology, and engineering.
If our students succeed in the 21st century global economy, we must
invest in our young people, who will create the businesses and
opportunities for future growth.
We must also ensure that our communities are part of economic revival
around the State.
I met with the Mahoning Valley Organizing Collaborative at one of my
roundtables. We sat for an hour and a half in the basement of a church,
with 15 community activists, who have a focus you wouldn't believe.
This is a collective effort of neighborhood groups, churches, and labor
unions. It is another example of citizens taking ownership of their
community. It is revitalizing neighborhoods, surveying land to
determine future economic use, and cleaning up crime-ridden
neighborhoods. Ordinary citizens are organizing to make a difference,
and it is working.
Yet another example of strategic economic development is the
Youngstown 2010 Citywide Plan, which aims to revitalize the city of
Youngstown with carefully planned economic development and urban
planning.
As Ohio cities experience population loss, Youngstown's efforts to
modernize infrastructure to serve current population needs is a
harbinger of economic growth in the State.
All of these efforts are part of a collective strategy by workers,
entrepreneurs, educators, and elected officials to tap into the
region's rich resources and innovative spirit. That is why Entrepreneur
Magazine wrote about Youngstown, calling it the ``dreamer.'' Out of
these 10 cities, the other 9 are significantly larger than Youngstown,
but none could equal Youngstown in hope, focus, and energy.
I will read some things they said:

In the last decade, something special happened in this
northeast Ohio city. A new generation is envisioning things
we wouldn't have talked about 10 years ago. ``Let's clean the
slate and start over again'' is the radical transformation
going on in Youngstown right now.

Mike Broderick, of Turning Technologies, said:

I believe in most places we wouldn't have been able to
expand with the speed we did. The affordability here really
helped fuel our growth. I found Youngstown to be a brilliant
place for a startup.

It has been my pleasure to work with Congressman Ryan, Mayor
Williams, the Youngstown Business Incubator, Turning Technologies, and
all of the community activists who are working hard to create new
opportunities for a better and stronger Youngstown.
Ohio's dedicated workforce and hard-working community leaders are
leading examples of how we can turn around our economy, create new
jobs, and how we can, across my State, and across the Mahoning Valley
in Ohio, and across this country, rebuild our middle class.
Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I add that all of us who do
this work and are, frankly, blessed enough to get to serve in the
Senate spend much of our time away from home or our families are back,
in my case, in Ohio, or in Washington. Either way, we are away from
families more than we would like. I would like to, because today is my
wife's birthday, wish her a happy birthday, if she is home watching
this. If she is not, I will tell her later. I could not be with her
today in Ohio. I look forward to coming home this weekend.
I yield the floor.

____________________

REMEMBERING MASON RUDD

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today with sadness to honor the
life of Mr. Mason Rudd, a good friend who died on July 5, 2009, at the
age of 90. He was loved by many in my hometown of Louisville, KY, and
he will be missed.
Mason will be remembered as an entrepreneur, philanthropist, and
family man who did so much to make his adopted hometown a better place.
His American dream began at the University of Minnesota, where he
funded his college education with help from a tennis scholarship,
participation in ROTC, and by selling doughnuts. In 1939, he graduated
with a degree in geology and petroleum engineering. After college, his
service in World War II led him to believe that he survived the war for
one reason--to help others achieve and live better lives. And this he
did.
Mr. Rudd spent a few years working as an engineer for Shell Oil and
then selling fire engines in Iowa until 1952 when he moved to
Louisville. There he established Rudd Equipment Company, which
distributed heavy construction equipment. The company he built brought
him a large fortune which would serve him well when he undertook his
many altruistic pursuits.
Mason grew to love the city and especially the local university--the
University of Louisville. He contributed $1.4 million to the creation
of a neurology professorship at the University of Louisville after his
first wife Mary suffered a fatal stroke. His help facilitated the $3.6
million Bass-Rudd Tennis Center at the University of Louisville as well
as the endowment for the Rudd Program for Young Artists at the Kentucky
Opera to train young singers.

[[Page 18434]]

However, more important than the money, Mr. Rudd contributed
invaluable time and effort to the causes of health care and education.
Thirty years ago, this passion was clear to me when I served as
Jefferson County's judge-executive and it was my responsibility to
appoint someone to the county's board of health. I reappointed him to
the board, just as those serving before me had and those after me did.
While serving on this board as well as in leadership positions at
Louisville General Hospitals and Louisville's Jewish Hospital, his
efforts provided everyone in the city with a healthier, safer life. His
fellow members credit him with creating lead poisoning education
programs, a hazardous-materials task force in the health department, a
mandate on sewage treatment, and primary care clinics for the
uninsured.
His efforts also extended to helping the Louisville Free Library
Foundation during his 16 years on the board there. Because of him the
library's book endowment is stronger and the children's reading program
continues to grow. Most notably, in the year 2000 library fundraising
efforts under his leadership made it possible to purchase computers for
the library.
Mr. Rudd leaves behind his wife Peggy: his daughter Betsy; and his
son Michael. The life he led in his 90 years stands out as an example
of service to his community and country which all Americans should
honor and strive to achieve. He will be missed.

____________________

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES

Command Master Chief Petty Officer Jeffrey James Garber

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Navy
Command Master Chief Jeffrey James Garber who passed away aboard the
USS Eisenhower on June 20, 2009.
Originally from Hemingford, NE, Master Chief Garber enlisted in the
Navy in December 1983. His career was an impressive one. At sea his
assignments included time aboard the USS Worden, USS Nimitz, USS
Portland, and Strike Fighter Squadron 34; and he had been assigned to
the USS Eisenhower since June 2008. The Eisenhower is currently
operating in the Arabian Sea in support of Operation Enduring Freedom
and maritime security operations.
Master Chief Garber's military awards include the Meritorious Service
Medal: Navy/Marine Corps Commendation Medal; Navy/Marine Corps
Achievement Medal, six; Meritorious Unit Commendation; Good Conduct
Medal, five; Navy Expeditionary Medal; National Defense Service Medal,
two; Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal,
two; Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, six; And Navy Recruiting Service
Ribbon.
On June 20, Command Master Chief Jeffrey James Garber was found
unresponsive in a berthing space aboard the carrier, USS Dwight D.
Eisenhower. When he was found unresponsive in his stateroom at
approximately 8:15 a.m. local time, a medical emergency was declared;
and medical personnel were on the scene within minutes. Sadly, all
efforts to revive him were unsuccessful, and Master Chief Garber was
pronounced dead of natural causes at 8:23 a.m. He was 43 years old.
Command Master Chief Garber has been posthumously awarded the Legion of
Merit medal, recognizing his accomplishments as Command Master Chief
and his 24 years of service to our Nation.
Command Master Chief Garber leaves behind his wife Amy, (Vogt)
Garber, and his three children, Tayler, Paige and Josh, all of Virginia
Beach; his parents Larry and JoAnn Kuester of York, NE; and his
brothers Joel and Jon. Throughout his career, those who knew him,
admired Master Chief Garber's professionalism, but also, genuinely
liked him. He will forever be remembered by his family and friends as
not only the epitome of what a command master chief should be, but
primarily a loving husband, father, and son. I join all Nebraskans
today in mourning the loss of Command Master Chief Garber and offering
our deepest condolences to his family.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

125TH ANNIVERSARY OF NORTHWOOD, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a
community in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. On
July 23-26, the residents of Northwood will gather to celebrate their
community's history and founding.
Founded in 1884, Northwood is located in Northeastern ND, and was
named after Northwood, IA, a common starting point for pioneers
settling in the Dakota Territory. In its early years, the town grew
rapidly, and continued to expand over the next century. It was honored
in 1993 by the North Dakota League of Cities as City of the Year.
In 2007, Northwood was devastated by an EF4 tornado. Not a single
building was left untouched by this monstrous storm that wreaked havoc
on everything in its path. Homes and businesses were destroyed, yet
amidst all of the destruction, this community banded together, and with
the assistance of the federal government, it has successfully rebuilt.
Today, Northwood is a friendly and welcoming community that includes
a nine-hole golf course, a swimming pool, a strong business community,
and a high quality education system. Additionally, the town remains
true to its agricultural roots through its farming population.
The central point of Northwood's 125th anniversary celebration will
be the dedication of the new Northwood Public School and the Veteran's
Memorial. Other activities, to name a few, include a community picnic,
a tractor pull, a teen dance, karaoke, a 5K walk and run, a craft show,
a kiddie parade, and a 3-on-3 basketball tournament.
I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Northwood, ND, and its
residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well in the
future. By honoring Northwood and all other historic small towns of
North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for
future generations. It is places such as Northwood that have helped
shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine
community is deserving of our recognition.
Northwood has a proud past and a bright future.

____________________

COMMENDING ABIGAIL KIMBELL

Mr. JOHANNS. Mr. President, today I pay tribute to a leader in
American forestry.
In February of 2007, Abigail Kimbell became the 16th Chief of the
U.S. Forest Service. She was the first female in this role, a job she
held until July 5, 2009. During those 2\1/2\ years, she served with
distinction and accomplished much for the forests, grasslands, and
people of the United States.
Gail is credited with renewing the emphasis behind the Forest
Service's mission of ``Caring for the Land and Serving People'' and
reconnecting programs and functions to that mission. She improved
firefighter safety and fire suppression cost containment. Gail showed
great vision and leadership, pressing the agency to continually strive
to meet a standard of excellence in its operations, both internally and
in service to the public.
Gail emphasized the importance of quality water to the environment
and our communities. She directed the agency's investment in the
education of children and youth, particularly those in underrepresented
communities, to enhance their connection to the natural world.
Gail's numerous and significant contributions span more than three
decades of public service. As a Forest Supervisor, she focused on
community collaboration to build understanding and support for an
economically and environmentally viable long-term timber sale program
in Alaska. She also made bold land management decisions to ensure
forests remained healthy by reducing hazardous fuels.
As associate deputy chief for the national forest system, Gail was
central to the development of the Healthy Forests Initiative, including
the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. She also worked to improve
interagency cooperation.

[[Page 18435]]

As regional forester in the northern region, she oversaw the
development and implementation of community wildfire protection plans
in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota. She also played a leading role in
the development of plans to delist the grizzly bear in the Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Gail pioneered the implementation of improved forest
planning with unprecedented public collaboration and ownership.
On July 31, 2009, Gail Kimbell will be retiring from the Forest
Service with 35-plus years of service to that agency and our country.
Her dedication to the Forest Service mission ``to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations'' will be forever
appreciated by the people of the United States.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 2:56 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 2245. An act to authorize the President, in
conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the historic and
first lunar landing by humans in 1969, to award gold medals
on behalf of the United States Congress to Neil A. Armstrong,
the first human to walk on the moon; Edwin E. ``Buzz''
Aldrin, Jr., the pilot of the lunar module and second person
to walk on the moon; Michael Collins, the pilot of their
Apollo 11 mission's command module; and, the first American
to orbit the Earth, John Herschel Glenn, Jr.
____

At 4:35 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the
concurrence of the Senate:

H. Con. Res. 164. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
40th anniversary of the Food and Nutrition Service of the
Department of Agriculture.

____________________

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-2352. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, transmitting the report of (6) officers authorized
to wear the insignia of the grade of major general in
accordance with title 10, United States Code, section 777; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-2353. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, transmitting the report of (10) officers authorized
to wear the insignia of the grade of brigadier general in
accordance with title 10, United States Code, section 777; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-2354. A communication from the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, transmitting the report of (7) officers authorized
to wear the insignia of the grade of major general in
accordance with title 10, United States Code, section 777; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
EC-2355. A communication from the Director of Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Defense Federal Acquistion Regulation Supplement;
Restriction on Acquisition of Specialty Metals'' ((RIN0750-
AF95) (DFARS Case 2008-D003)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 16, 2009; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-2356. A communication from the Director of Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Defense Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Requirements
Applicable to Undefinitized Contract Actions'' ((RIN0750-
AG29) (DFARS Case 2008-D029)) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 17, 2009; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
EC-2357. A communication from the Secretary of the
Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, a six-month periodic
report on the national emergency that was declared in
Executive Order 13441 with respect to Lebanon; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-2358. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Qualified Plug-in Electric Vehicle Credit
Under Section 30'' (Notice 2009-58) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on July 14, 2009; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-2359. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Industry Director's Directive No. 2 on
Casualty Loss IRC 165'' (LMSB-4-0309-010) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 14, 2009; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-2360. A communication from the Chief of the Publications
and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department
of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Industry Director's Directive No. 4 on
Mixed Service Costs Phase 1'' (LMSB-4-0509-022) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 20, 2009;
to the Committee on Finance.
EC-2361. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-123, ``Processing Sales Tax
Clarification Act of 2009''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2362. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-124, ``National Law Enforcement Museum
Sales and Use Tax Credit Act of 2009''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2363. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-125, ``Records Access Amendment Act of
2009''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-2364. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-126, ``Raze Permit Community
Notification Amendment Act of 2009''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2365. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-127, ``Citizen-Service Programs
Amendment Act of 2009''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2366. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-128, ``Child Development Center
Directors Relocation Fairness Clarification Temporary
Amendment Act of 2009''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2367. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-133, ``Transportation Infrastructure
Improvements GARVEE Bond Financing Act of 2009''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2368. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-134, ``Anacostia River Clean Up and
Protection Act of 2009''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2369. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-135, ``Clean and Affordable Energy Fund
Balance Temporary Amendment Act of 2009''; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2370. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 18-136, ``Neighborhood Development Tax
Deferral Temporary Act of 2009''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2371. A communication from the Director, Office of
Personnel Management, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Office's report on Federal agencies' use of the physicians
comparability allowance (PCA) program; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs .
EC-2372. A communication from the Senior Official, Office
of Inspector General, Federal Housing Finance Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the Semi-Annual Report of the
Inspector General for the period from October 1, 2008 through
March 31, 2009; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-2373. A communication from the Inspector General,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Semi-Annual Report of the Inspector General for the period
from October 1, 2008 through March 31, 2009; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-2374. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Summer 2009 Fireworks, Coastal Massachusetts'' ((RIN1625-
AA08, 1625-AA00)(Docket No. USG-2009-0422)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2375. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department

[[Page 18436]]

of Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays
in Boothbay Harbor, South Gardiner, and Woolwich, Maine''
((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USG-2009-0526)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2376. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
San Clemente Island Northwest Harbor August and September
Training; Northwest Harbor, San Clemente Island, California''
((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USG-2009-0522)) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2377. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Southside Summer Fireworks, St. Clair River, Port Huron,
Michigan'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USG-2009-0478))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2378. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Sigma Gamma Fireworks, Lake St. Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms,
Michigan'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USG-2009-0477))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2379. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
Thunder on Niagara, Niagara River, North Tonawanda, New
York'' ((RIN1625-AA00)(Docket No. USG-2009-0110)) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2380. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Safety Zone;
F/V PATRIOT, Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts'' ((RIN1625-
AA00)(Docket No. USG-2009-0512)) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2381. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Regulated
Navigation Area; Herbert C. Bonner Bridge, Oregon Inlet,
North Carolina'' ((RIN1625-AA11)(Docket No. USG-2009-0489))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2382. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Between Maryland and
Virginia'' ((RIN1625-AA09)(Docket No. USG-2008-1216))
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2383. A communication from the Attorney Advisor, U.S.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Anchorage
Regulations; Port of New York'' ((RIN1625-AA01)(Docket No.
USG-2009-0045)) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on July 15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2384. A communication from the Director of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern
United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Closure of the
Eastern United States/Canada Area'' (RIN0648-XQ01) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15,
2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2385. A communication from the Director of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern
United States; Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the
Closed Area II Scallop Access Area to Scallop Vessels''
(RIN0648-XQ05) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on July 15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2386. A communication from the Director of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and
South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Closure of the 2009 Deepwater Grouper Commercial Fishery''
(RIN0648-XP56) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on July 15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2387. A communication from the Director of Sustainable
Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of
Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act Provisions; Fisheries of West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Biennial Specifications and
Management Measures; Inseason Adjustments'' (RIN0648-AX96)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July
15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2388. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Spiny Dogfish; Framework
Adjustment 2'' (RIN0648-AX56) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2389. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Office of Sustainable
Fisheries, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Northeastern United States; Recreational Management Measures
for the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fisheries;
Fishing Year 2009'' (RIN0648-AX69) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2390. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Exclusive
Economic Zone Off Alaska; Greenland Turbot, Arrowtooth
Flounder, and Sablefish by Vessels Participating in the
Amendment 80 Limited Access Fishery in Bering Sea and
Aleutian Islands Management Area'' (RIN0648-XP97) received in
the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-2391. A communication from the Acting Director of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery; Closure of the Pacific
Whiting Primary Fishery for the Mothership Sector'' (RIN0648-
XP82) received in the Office of the President of the Senate
on July 15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-2392. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-
Grouper Fishery Off the Southern Atlantic States; Amendment
16'' (RIN0648-AW64) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-2393. A communication from the Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Operations, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fisheries Off West Coast
States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Annual
Specifications Modification'' (RIN0648-XO74) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2009; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES--THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009

The following material was omitted from the Congressional Record of
June 25, 2009 on page 16284:

Financial Campaign Contributions Report for Daniel M.
Rooney:
Nominee: Daniel Milton Rooney.
Post: Ireland.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributor, date, recipient, amount:
Daniel Milton Rooney: 5/24/2008, Gridiron-PAC, $5,000; 10/
21/2008, Committee for Change (Joint FR Committee), $30,000.
Patricia Regan Rooney: 6/15/2007, Tom Rooney, $2,300; 6/27/
2008, DCCC, $5,000; 8/03/2005, Patrick Murphy, $2,000; 9/29/
2005, Patrick Murphy, $1,109; 4/21/2008, Barack Obama, $500;
11/19/2007, John Murtha, $2,000; 8/14/2008, John Murtha,
$2,000; 5/18/2005, John Murtha, $1,500; 7/07/2006, John
Murtha, $2,000; 6/28/2006, DCCC, $1,500; 12/28/2007, DCCC,
$2,000; 9/23/2008, Patrick Murphy, $250; 10/21/2008,
Committee for Change (Joint FR Committee), $30,000.
Arthur Joseph Rooney II: 9/07/2006, Melissa Hart, $500; 4/
13/2007, Arlen Specter, $1,000; 6/20/2008, DCCC, $2,000; 8/
06/2005, Patrick Murphy, $500; 10/27/2006, Mike Doyle, $500;
11/01/

[[Page 18437]]

2005, John Murtha, $1,000; 11/19/2007, John Murtha, $2,000;
8/25/2008, John Murtha, $2,000; 5/02/2008, Tom Rooney,
$1,700; 5/02/2008, Tom Rooney, ($1,700); 5/02/2008, Tom
Rooney, $2,000; 6/03/2005, Tim Murphy, $1,000.
Patricia Rooney Gerrero: 4/11/2008, Hillary Clinton, $500.
Rita Rooney Conway: 8/14/2008, 07/31/2008, John Murtha,
Obama Victory Fund (Joint FR Committee), $2,000; $5,000; 6/
30/2008, Obama for America, $250; 02/12/2008, Hillary Clinton
for President, $1,000; 10/14/2005, DSCC, $500; 05/30/2006,
DSCC, $250; 10/23/2008, Committee for Change, $10,000; 06/30/
2006, DCCC, $2,000; 08/31/2007, Obama for America, $250.
Daniel Michael Rooney: 05/12/2005, North Side Good
Government Committee, $3000; 3/26/2007, Tom Rooney, $400; 3/
26/2007, Tom Rooney, $2,300; 7/22/2008, Tom Rooney, $1,900;
9/15/2008, Florida 16 Victory Trust (Joint FR Committee),
$5,000.
John Thomas Rooney: 11/15/2005, George W. Bush, $1,000; 8/
31/2007, Tom Rooney, $2,300.
James Emmett Rooney: 12/20/2005, Mike Doyle, $500; 01/24/
2008, Arlen Specter, $500; 03/12/2007, Majority PAC, $1,000;
3/23/2006, Robert Casey, $2,100; 3/23/2006, Robert Casey,
$2,100; 11/29/2007, Robert Casey, $1,000; 3/04/2008, William
Shuster, $500; 4/25/2008, Jason Altmire, $500; 10/29/2008,
Jason Altmire, $2,300; 5/18/2005, John Murtha, $1,000; 9/20/
2005, John Murtha, $1,000; 7/07/2006, John Murtha, $2,000; 6/
28/2006, DCCC, $1,000; 11/19/2007, John Murtha, $2,000; 10/
11/2005, Prosperity Helps Inspire Liberty PAC, $1,000; 6/08/
2008, Hilary Clinton, $1,000.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER for the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
*Polly Trottenberg, of Maryland, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Transportation.
*Deborah A. P. Hersman, of Virginia, to be Chairman of the
National Transportation Safety Board for a term of two years.
*Deborah A. P. Hersman, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
National Transportation Safety Board for a term expiring
December 31, 2013.
*Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr., of Maryland, to be a Federal
Maritime Commissioner for the term expiring June 30, 2012.
*Meredith Attwell Baker, of Virginia, to be a Member of the
Federal Communications Commission for the remainder of the
term expiring June 30, 2011.
*Mignon L. Clyburn, of South Carolina, to be a Member of
the Federal Communications Commission for a term of five
years from July 1, 2007.
By Mr. KERRY for the Committee on Foreign Relations.
*Anne Elizabeth Derse, of Maryland, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Lithuania.
Nominee: Anne Elizabeth Derse.
Post: Lithuania.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date, donee:
1. Self: None.
2. Spouse: None.
3. Children and Spouses None.
4. Parents: None, deceased.
5. Grandparents: None, deceased.
6. Brothers and Spouses: N/A.
7. Sisters and Spouses: Jane Quasarano (sister), None.
Paul Quasarano (brother-in-law): (A good faith effort was
made to obtain contribution information from Mr. Quasarano.
The following is what is available:) National Beer
Wholesalers Association (NBWA) PAC: Contributions in 2005,
2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009; Michigan Beer and Wine
Wholesalers Association (MBWWA) PAC: Contributions in 2005,
2006, 2007 and $3,000 in 2008 and $3,000 in 2009; Michigan
Senator Martha Scott: $1,500 in 2008 and $1,500 in 2009;
Michigan Lt. Governor John Cherry: $5,000 in 2008 and $5,000
in 2009; Magistrate O'Brien; Michigan State Representative Ed
Gaffney; Michigan Senator Mary Waters; Michigan Senator Steve
Tobocman.
Lisa Leifield (sister): None.
Daniel Leifield (brother-in-law): None.
____

*Carlos Pascual, of the District of Columbia, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to Mexico.
Nominee: Carlos Pascual.
Post: Ambassador to Mexico.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date, donee.
1. Self: $1,000, September 2008, Barack Obama; $250, August
2008, Hillary Clinton.
2. Spouse: $250, April 2008, DNC.
3. Children and Spouses: N/A.
4. Parents: None.
____

^*Kenneth H. Merten, 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 Republic of Haiti.
NOMINEE: Kenneth H. Merten.
Port-Au-Prince, Haiti.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date, donee:
1. Self: None.
2. Spouse: None.
3. Children and Spouses: None.
4. Parents: None.
5. Grandparents: None.
6. Brothers and Spouses: None.
7. Sisters and Spouses: None.
____

*Donald Sternoff Beyer, Jr., of Virginia, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Switzerland, and to serve concurrently and without
additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the
Principality of Liechtenstein.
Nominee: Donald Sternoff Beyer, Jr.
Post: Chief of Mission to the Swiss Confederation and the
Principality of Liechtenstein.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them in
the past four years. To the best of my knowledge, the
information contained in this report is complete and
accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date, donee:
1. Self: Obama for America, $4,600, 2007; Judy Feder for
Congress, $2,000, 2006; Judy Feder for Congress, $1,000,
2008; Al Weed for Congress, $2,000, 2006; John Tester for
U.S. Senate, $1,000, 2006; Tom Harkin for U.S. Senate,
$2,280, 2007; Leonard Boswell for Congress, $2,100, 2006; Tom
Perriello for Congress, $2,300, 2008; Dan Seals for Congress,
$1,000, 2008; Paul Hodes for Congress, $2,000, 2007; Dan
Seals for Congress, $1,000, 2006; Jared Polis for Congress,
$500, 2008; Eighth District Democratic Committee, Virginia
Democratic Party, $250, 2006; Allan Lichtman for Senate,
$250, 2006; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $5,000,
2007; Fairfax County Democratic Committee, $1,000, 2008;
Philip Forgit for Congress, $1,000, 2007; Peter Welch for
Congress, $1,250, 2005; Peter Welch for Congress, $1,000,
2006; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $500, 2006;
Alexandria Democratic Committee, $250, 2005; Mary Landrieu
for Senate, $2,300, 2007; John Kerry for U.S. Senate, $1,000,
2007; Harris Miller for Senate, $2,100, 2006; Forward
Together PAC, $5,000, 2005; Democratic Party of Virginia,
$2,500, 2007; Born Fighting PAC, $2,500, 2008; Leslie Byrne
for Congress, $2,300, 2008; Mark Udall for Senate, $2,300,
2008; Mark Warner for Senate, $4,600, 2007; Jim Webb for U.S.
Senate, $2,100, 2006; Bob Casey for U.S. Senate, $2,000,
2005; Bob Casey for U.S. Senate, $900, 2006; Ethan Berkowitz
for Congress, $1,000, 2008; Democratic National Committee,
$28,500, 2008 (Obama Victory Fund); Gerry Connelly for
Congress, $2,300, 2008; Gerry Connelly for Congress, $1,000,
2009; Win Virginia 2008, $3,256, 2008; Democratic National
Committee, $26,700, 2005; Moving Virginia Forward, $20,000,
2007; Kaine for Governor, $19,600, 2005; Deeds for Attorney
General, $10,000, 2005; Byrne for Lieutenant Governor,
$8,600, 2005; Commonwealth Coalition, $5,000, 2006; Virginia
Senate Causus, $5,000, 2007.
2. Spouse: Megan C. Beyer: Obama for America, $4,600, 2007;
Mark Warner for Senate, $4,600, 2007; Democratic National
Committee, $28,500, 2008 (Obama Victory Fund); Harris Miller
for Senate, $2,100, 2006, Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee, $10,000, 2006; Forward Together PAC, $5,000, 2005;
Ronnie Musgrove for U.S. Senate $1,000, 2008; Leslie Byrne
for U.S. Congress, $1,000, 2008; Gerry Connelly for U.S.
Congress, $1,000, 2008; Mary Landrieu for Senate, $1,000,
2008; Win Virginia 2008, $3,256, 2008; Virginia Senate 2006,
$10,000, 2006; Democratic National Committee, $5,000, 2005;
Democratic National Committee, $500, 2006; Democratic
National Committee, $5,000, 2007.
3. Children and Spouses: Donald S. Beyer III: No
contributions.
Stephanie A. S. Beyer: $2,300, 3/2007, Obama for America.
Clara S. Beyer: No contributions.
Grace S. Beyer: No contributions.
4. Parents: Donald S. Beyer, Sr.: No contributions.
Nancy M. Beyer: (deceased 1999).
5. Grandparents: Otto S. Beyer Jr.: (deceased 1948).
Clara M. Beyer: (deceased 1990).
Beatrice J. McDonald: (deceased 1974).
Henry Stewart McDonald Jr.: (deceased 1985).
6. Brothers Spouses: Michael S. Beyer: $2,300, 8/17/07,
Obama for America; $250, 5/14/07, Whipple for Va Senate.
June C. Beyer, spouse: $250, 8/6/08, Obama for America;
$250, 7/21/08, Obama for America.

[[Page 18438]]

7. Sisters and Spouses: Katherine S. Beyer (single): No
contributions.
Sharon S. Beyer (divorced): No contributions.
Marylee B. Hill: $250, 9/27/06, Feder for Congress; $250,
6/14/07, Obama for America; $2,300, 8/17/07, Obama for
America; $500, 10/3/07, Hudgins for Fairfax Board; $250, 3/4/
07, Hudgins for Fairfax Board; $600, 12/29/05, Kaine
Inaugural Committee; $350, 5/30/07, Vanderhye for Va
Delegate; $250, 7/2/08, Petersen for Va Senate; $150, 9/24/
07, Moving Virginia Forward.
Wayne Hill, Spouse: No contributions.
Sandra S. Beyer (divorced): No contributions.
____

*John R. Nay, of Michigan, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Suriname.
Nominee: John R. Nay.
Post: U.S. Embassy Paramaribo, Suriname.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
be best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date and donee:
1. Self: $0--I have never made a political donation.
2. Spouse: $0--She has never made a political donation.
3. Children and Spouses: Janelle V.A. (Nay) Bennett: $0--
has never made a political donation; Jamison R. Bennett: $0--
has never made a political donation; Jaclyn E.A. Nay: $0--has
never made a political donation; Jordan R. Nay: $0--has never
made a political donation.
4. Parents: Jack R. Nay: $50, Spring 2006, Joe Schwartz (R-
Michigan); Geraldine G. Nay: $0, (made only one political
donation in her lifetime--$30 to the Democratic Nat'l
Committee in March 1996).
5. Grandparents: Decreased.
6. Brothers and Spouses: None.
7. Sisters and Spouses: Karen Y. Sefchick: $0--has never
made a political donation.
____

*Vinai K. Thummalapally, of Colorado, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Belize.
Nominee: Vinai Kumar Thummalapally.
Post: Chief of Mission, Belize.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date, and donee:
1. Self: $2,200, 6/07, Obama for America; $9,000, 9/08,
Obama Victory Fund; $500, 9/08, Madia for U.S. Congress;
$500, 7/08, Hal Bidlack for Congress.
2. Spouse: Barbara: $2,300, 6/07, Obama for America; $100,
10/08, Josh Segall for Congress (AL); $500, 9/08, Obama
Victory Fund; $500, 9/08, Obama for America; $500, 8/08,
Udall for Colorado, US Senate; $300, 9/08, Udall for
Colorado, US Senate; $1,000, 1/09, Ritter for Governor,
Colorado; $1,000, 3/09, Bennet for U.S. Senate; $25, 3/09,
Organizing for America.
3. Children: Vishal: $2,500, 6/07, Obama for America;
$1,800, 6/07, Obama for America; $1,000, 3/09, Bennet for
U.S. Senate.
Sharanya: $2,275, 6/07, Obama for America.
4. Parents: Dharma R. Thummalapalli: None.
Padmaja Thummalapally: None.
5. Grandparents: (deceased): None.
6. Brother and Spouse: Ajay K. Thummalapally: None.
Vilasini Reddy: None.
7a. Sisters and Spouses: Deepika Rao: None.
Sagar Rao: None.
7b. Rasika G. Reddy: $2,300, 6/30/07, Obama for America;
$2,300, 7/17/08, Obama Victory Fund; $2,300, 7/31/08, Obama
for America; $2,300 10/01/08, Madia for U.S. Congress.
Girish V. Reddy: $2,300, 6/30/07, Obama for America;
$1,000, 7/31/08, Obama Victory Fund; $1,000, 7/31/08, Obama
Victory Fund; $28,500, 10/02/08, Obama Victory Fund; $2,300,
10/16/08, Obama for America.
____

*Nicole A. Avant, of California, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.
Nominee: Nicole Alexandra Avant.
Post: United States Ambassador to the Bahamas.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.
Contributions, Amount, Date, and Donee:
1. Self: $1,000, 11/02/06, Music Row Democrats Federal PAC
Inc.; $2,300, 03/31/07, Obama For America; $2,300, 03/31/07,
Obama For America; -$2,300, 04/26/07, Obama For America;
$2,300, 05/24/07, Obama For America; -$2,300, 05/24/07, Obama
For America; $2,300, 05/24/07, Obama For America; -$2,300,
10/31/07, Obama For America; $500, 06/14/07, John Edwards For
President; $500, 07/31/08, Hillary Clinton For President;
$1,000, 10/21/08, Committee For Change (Joint Fundraiser
Contribution); $1,000, 10/27/08, Nebraskans For Kleeb.
2. Spouse: None.
3. Children and Spouses: None.
4. Parents: Clarence Avant (father): 2005/2006, $1,000, 10/
16/06, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; $1,000, 03/
22/06, Friends Of Rahm Emanuel; $2,100, 09/30/06, Tennessee
Senate 2006 (Joint Fundraising Contribution); $500, 06/30/05,
LA PAC; $1,000, 10/24/05, Berman For Congress; $1,200, 07/14/
06, Harold Ford Jr. For Tennessee; $900, 02/27/06, Harold
Ford Jr. For Tennessee; $2,000, 08/20/05, Harold Ford Jr. For
Tennessee; $1,000, 12/15/05, Cantwell 2012; $1,000, 01/12/06,
Mfume For US Senate; $1,000, 06/05/06, Mfume For US Senate;
$1,100, 08/16/06, Mfume For US Senate; $500, 04/01/06, Schiff
For Congress; $1,000, 11/01/05, Schiff For Congress; $5,000,
05/20/05, Hopefund, Inc.; $500, 11/01/06, Mejias For
Congress; $500, 09/30/06, Mejias For Congress; $1,000, 09/26/
05, Friends Of Patrick J. Kennedy Inc.; $500, 04/18/06,
Barbara Lee For Congress; $1,000, 05/01/05, Barbara Lee For
Congress; $1,000, 06/26/06, Mary Bono Committee; $500, 02/12/
06, Hackett For Senate; $1,000, 03/14/06, Carter For Senate
Committee; $500, 05/30/06, Friends Of Tammy Duckworth;
$2,000, 08/25/05, Citizens For Waters; $1,000, 03/23/06,
Feinstein For Senate; $250, 03/24/06, Committee To Re-Elect
Loretta Sanchez; $250, 11/07/05, Committee To Re-Elect
Loretta Sanchez; $500, 06/22/06, Klobuchar For Minnesota;
$500, 04/25/05, Bill Nelson For US Senate; $500, 03/31/06,
Bill Nelson For US Senate; $400, 10/20/05, Friends Of
Hillary; $1,000, 06/14/05, Friends Of Hillary; $4,200, 04/04/
06, Friends of Hillary; $1,000, 07/11/05, Friends Of Hillary;
-$3,500, 05/02/06, Friends Of Hillary; $2,500, 10/19/06, Hill
PAC; $500, 07/25/06, Lawless For Congress; $500, 03/19/06,
Jesse Jackson Jr. For Congress; $500, 12/03/05, Jesse Jackson
Jr. For Congress; $1,900, 12/15/05, Kennedy For Senate 2012;
$2,100, 12/15/05, Kennedy For Senate 2012; $1,000, 11/04/05,
Steele For Maryland Inc.; $1,000, 02/21/06, DNC Services
Corporation/Democratic National Committee; $1,000, 11/02/06,
DNC Services Corporation/Democratic National Committee; 2007/
2008, $1,000, 08/31/07, Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee; $2,000, 01/23/08, Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee; $1,000, 10/10/07, Friends Of Rahm
Emanuel; $500, 07/14/08, Loebsack For Congress; $500, 09/30/
07, John Hall For Congress; $1,000, 05/11/07, Richardson For
President Inc.; $1,000, 11/23/07, Friends Of Mark Warner;
$2,300, 08/28/08, Friends Of Hillary; $5,000, 07/29/08, Hill
PAC; $2,300, 07/18/08, Vernon Jones For Georgia; $500, 07/10/
07, Richardson For Congress; $250, 06/25/07, Richardson For
Congress; $500, 08/08/07, Richardson For Congress; $500, 05/
19/08, Alaskans For Begich; $750, 06/18/08, Citizens For
Waters; $1,000, 07/21/07, Citizens For Waters; $500, 10/15/
08, Committee To Re-Elect Loretta Sanchez; $500, 11/09/07,
Committee To Re-Elect Loretta Sanchez; $1,000, 09/16/08,
Democrats Win Seats (DWS PAC); $1,000, 09/28/07, Friends Of
Senator Carl Levin; $1,000, 03/01/07, Friends Of Patrick J.
Kennedy Inc.; $500, 09/06/07, Barbara Lee For Congress;
$1,000, 03/30/08, Barbara Lee For Congress; $250, 09/30/07,
Mary Bono Mack Committee; $500, 09/17/08, Diane E. Watson For
Congress; $500, 11/14/07, Diane E. Watson For Congress;
$2,300, 03/28/07, Hillary Clinton For President; $2,300, 05/
09/07, Hillary Clinton For President; $1,000, 06/20/08,
Powers For Congress; $2,300, 10/31/07, Friends Of Barbara
Boxer; $2,300, 10/31/07, Friends Of Barbara Boxer; $500, 03/
20/08, Jesse Jackson Jr. For Congress; $2,500, 07/16/08,
Rangel Victory Fund (Joint Fundraising Contribution); $2,300,
10/27/08, David Scott For Congress; $500, 08/27/08, Joe
Garcia For Congress; $1,000, 03/13/07, John Edwards For
President; $1,000, 03/20/08, Al Franken For Senate; $500, 07/
07/08, Congressman Waxman Campaign Committee; $1,000, 08/16/
07, LA PAC; $1,000, 11/20/07, Berman For Congress; $300, 06/
28/08, Committee To Re-Elect Ed Towns; $2,000, 06/28/08,
Committee To Re-Elect Ed Towns; -$400, 04/29/08, Friends Of
Jim Clyburn; $300, 09/24/07, Friends Of Jim Clyburn; $700,
09/24/07, Friends Of Jim Clyburn; $2,000, 06/14/07, Friends
Of Jim Clyburn; $2,300, 05/02/07, Rangel For Congress;
$1,000, 08/20/07, Conyers for Congress; $2,500, 08/02/08,
Conyers For Congress; $-1,200, 08/02/08,-Conyers For
Congress; $1,200, 08/02/08,-Conyers For Congress; $5,000, 09/
19/08, Obama Victory Fund (Joint Fundraising Contribution);
$28,500, 6/30/08, Obama Victory Fund (Joint Fundraising
Contribution); $2,300, 03/08/07, Obama For America.
Jacqueline Avant (mother): 2005/2006, $2,100, 04/19/06,
Friends Of Hillary; 2007/2008, $250, 02/14/07, Emily's List;
$2,300, 03/28/07, Hillary Clinton For President; $4,600, 08/
31/08, Obama Victory Fund (Joint Fundraiser Contribution);
$1,000, 09/16/08, Democrats Win Seats (DWS PAC); $2,000, 12/
08/08, Friends of Barbara Boxer.
5. Grandparents: Zella Gray (maternal grandmother)--
deceased; Leon Gray (maternal grandfather)--deceased;
Gertrude Woods (paternal grandmother)--deceased; Phoenix
Jarrell (paternal grandfather)--deceased.
6. Brothers and Spouses: Alexander Avant (brother): $500,
6/07/07, Hillary Clinton For President; $500, 09/11/07,
Hillary Clinton For President; $250, 12/13/07, Hillary
Clinton For President; $2,300, 06/30/08, Obama Victory

[[Page 18439]]

Fund (Joint Fundraiser Contribution); $2,500, 09/19/08, Obama
Victory Fund (Joint Fundraiser Contribution); $250, 10/10/08,
Hill PAC.
7. Sisters and Spouses--None.
____

*Howard W. Gutman, of Maryland, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Belgium.
Nominee: Howard Gutman.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, amount, date, and donee:
1. Self: $4600, 3/29/07, Obama for America; $1000, 6/30/06,
Boswell for Congress; $1000, 9/21/06, Ben Cardin for Senate;
$1000, 2/23/08, Ben Cardin for Senate; $1000, 6/30/2006,
Friends of Joe Lieberman; $1000, 9/25/2008, Patrick Murphy
for Congress; $250, 2/27/06, David Yassky for Congress;
$1000, 12/10/08, Mikulski for Senate Committee; $500, 3/01/
06, Whitehouse for Senate; $2300, 11/24/08, Hillary Clinton
for President; $5000, 7/06/05, Forward Together PAC; $5000,
1/10/2006, Forward Together PAC; $2300, 9/24/2007, Friends of
Mark Warner; $2300, 1/16/2008, Friends of Mark Warner; $1000,
4/18/07, Friends of Mary Landrieu; $2100, 3/8/06, Miller 2006
(Harris Miller); $2100, 10/31/05, Rales for Senate; $2500, 9/
23/08, Democratic Party of Virginia;
2.-Spouse: Michelle Loewinger or Michelle Gutman: $5000, 7/
6/05, Forward Together PAC; $5000, 1/10/06, Forward Together
PAC; 3/29/07, $2300, Obama for America; 5/25/07, $2300, Obama
for America; 10/31/05, $2100, Rales for Senate; 9/24/07,
$2300, Friends of Mark Warner; 1/16/08, $2300, Friends of
Mark Warner;
3. Children and Spouses: Collin Gutman--single--none; Chase
Gutman--single--none.
4. Parents: Max Gutman--deceased 1973; Roslyn Gutman--none.
5. Grandparents: All grandparents are deceased for decades.
6. Brothers and Spouses: None.
7. Sisters and Spouses: Deborah Studen (Harvey Studen)--
none.
____

*Vilma S. Martinez, of California, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to Argentina.
Nominee: Vilma S. Martinez.
Post: Ambassador to Argentina.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Contributions, -amount, date, donee:
1. Self: $931.00, 1/29/2008, Obama for America; $1,000.00,
10/30/2008, -Obama for America; $250.00, 3/25/2006, Friends
of Juan Vargas; $200.00, 10/02/2006, Madrid for Congress.
2. Spouse: not applicable.
3. Children and Spouses: Ricardo T. Singer: none.
Carlos A. Singer: $1,000.00, 10/11/2004, Democratic
National Committee.
Jessica Uzcategui, (Carlos' spouse): $500.00, 1/26/2008,
Obama for America.
4. Parents: Salvador Martinez: deceased.
Marina P. Martinez: deceased.
5. Grandparents: Guadalupe Martinez: deceased.
Zaragoza Martinez: deceased.
Agustina Pina: deceased.
Rosendo Pina: deceased.
6. Brothers and Spouses: Salvador Martinez, Jr.: unable to
locate.
Mary Jane Martinez (spouse): deceased.
James P. Martinez: none.
7. Sisters and Spouses: Rose Linda Hernandez: none.
Robert Hernandez (spouse): none.
Elizabeth Bond: none.
Charles Bond (spouse): none.
____

(*David H. Thorne, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Italian Republic, and to serve concurrently
and without additional compensation as Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of San Marino.)
Nominee: David H. Thorne.
Post: Ambassador to Italy and San Marino.
(The following is a list of all members of my immediate
family and their spouses. I have asked each of these persons
to inform me of the pertinent contributions made by them. To
the best of my knowledge, the information contained in this
report is complete and accurate.)
Donee, amount, date, and donor:
Self: Democratic National Committee, $100, 2006, David
Thorne; Democratic National Committee, $1000, 2006, David
Thorne; New Hampshire Democratic Party, $1000, 2006, David
Thorne; Friends of John Kerry, $2100, 2006, David Thorne;
John Powers for Congress, $2300, 2007, David Thorne; Biden
for President, $1000, 2007, David Thorne; Obama for America,
$1000, 2008, David Thorne; Obama for America, $1000, 2008,
David Thorne; Obama for America, $250, 2008, David Thorne;
Obama Victory Fund, $1000, 2008, David Thorne; Obama Victory
Fund, $250, 2008, David Thorne; Obama Victory Fund, $1000,
2008, David Thorne; Footlik for Congress, $1000, 2008, David
Thorne; Young Democrats of America, $500, 2008, David Thorne.
Spouse: Friends of John Kerry, $2100, 2006, Rose Thorne;
John Powers for Congress, $1300, 2007, Rose Thorne; John
Powers for Congress, $1000, 2007, Rose Thorne.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I
report favorably the following nomination list which was printed in the
Record on the date indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the
expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that this nomination
lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

*Foreign Service nominations beginning with Christopher L.
Andino and ending with Holly Hope Zardus, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on June 25, 2009.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

____________________

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 Mrs. McCASKILL:
S. 1476. A bill to require all new and upgraded fuel pumps
to be equipped with automatic temperature compensation
equipment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1477. A bill to establish a user fee for follow-up
reinspections under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself, Mr. Alexander, and Mr.
Reid):
S. 1478. A bill to strengthen communities through English
literacy and civics education for new Americans, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. Franken):
S. 1479. A bill to provide for the treatment of certain
hospitals; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Begich, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Tester):
S. 1480. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to
establish a program to improve the health and education of
children through grants to expand school breakfast programs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Johanns):
S. 1481. A bill to amend section 811 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to improve the
program under such section for supportive housing for persons
with disabilities; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Rockefeller,
Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1482. A bill to reauthorize the 21st Century
Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR:
S. 1483. A bill to designate the Department of Veterans
Affairs outpatient clinic in Alexandria, Minnesota, as the
``Max J. Beilke Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient
Clinic''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr.
Martinez):
S. 1484. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to create Catastrophe Savings Accounts; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. Nelson of
Florida):
S. 1485. A bill to improve hurricane preparedness by
establishing the National Hurricane Research Initiative and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr.
Martinez):
S. 1486. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide for the creation of disaster protection funds by
property and casualty insurance companies for the payment of
policyholders' claims arising from future catastrophic
events; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself and Mr.
Martinez):
S. 1487. A bill to establish a bipartisan commission on
insurance reform; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
By Mr. BURRIS:
S. 1488. A bill to extend temporarily the 18-month period
of continuation coverage under

[[Page 18440]]

group health plans required under COBRA continuation coverage
provisions so as to provide for a total period of
continuation coverage of up to 24 months; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1489. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to create
parity among small business contracting programs, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. McCONNELL:
S. Res. 218. A resolution making minority party
appointments for the 111th Congress; considered and agreed
to.
By Mr. MENENDEZ:
S. Res. 219. A resolution honoring the hockey team of East
Side High School in Newark, New Jersey; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. BURRIS:
S. Con. Res. 33. A concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress that a commemorative postage stamp should
be issued to honor the crew of the USS Mason DE-529 who
fought and served during World War II; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 144

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Martinez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 144, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from listed
property under section 280F.

S. 211

At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Conrad) was added as a cosponsor of S. 211, a bill to
facilitate nationwide availability of 2-1-1 telephone service for
information and referral on human services and volunteer services, and
for other purposes.

S. 237

At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 237, a bill to establish a
collaborative program to protect the Great Lakes, and for other
purposes.

S. 254

At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of S. 254, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for the coverage of home
infusion therapy under the Medicare Program.

S. 428

At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 428, a bill to allow travel
between the United States and Cuba.

S. 572

At the request of Mr. Webb, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mrs. McCaskill) was added as a cosponsor of S. 572, a bill to provide
for the issuance of a ``forever stamp'' to honor the sacrifices of the
brave men and women of the armed forces who have been awarded the
Purple Heart.

S. 616

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 616, a bill to amend the Public
Health Service Act to authorize medical simulation enhancement
programs, and for other purposes.

S. 781

At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 781, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for collegiate housing and
infrastructure grants.

S. 812

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Barrasso) was added as a cosponsor of S. 812, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the special rule for
contributions of qualified conservation contributions.

S. 846

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 846, a bill to award a
congressional gold medal to Dr. Muhammad Yunus, in recognition of his
contributions to the fight against global poverty.

S. 913

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) was added as a cosponsor of S. 913, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand workplace health incentives by
equalizing the tax consequences of employee athletic facility use.

S. 941

At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 941, a bill to reform the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, modernize firearm
laws and regulations, protect the community from criminals, and for
other purposes.

S. 1026

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1026, a bill to amend the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to improve
procedures for the collection and delivery of marked absentee ballots
of absent overseas uniformed service voters, and for other purposes.

S. 1055

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1055, a bill to grant the
congressional gold medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion
and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, United States Army, in
recognition of their dedicated service during World War II.

S. 1066

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1066, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to preserve access to ambulance
services under the Medicare program.

S. 1121

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1121, a bill to amend part
D of title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to
provide grants for the repair, renovation, and construction of
elementary and secondary schools, including early learning facilities
at the elementary schools.

S. 1128

At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1128, a bill to
authorize the award of a military service medal to members of the Armed
Forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of
participation in the testing of nuclear weapons or under other
circumstances.

S. 1153

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1153, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the exclusion from gross income
for employer-provided health coverage for employees' spouses and
dependent children to coverage provided to other eligible designated
beneficiaries of employees.

S. 1156

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1156, a bill to amend the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users to reauthorize and improve the safe routes to school program.

S. 1265

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Utah (Mr.
Hatch) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1265, a bill to amend the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to provide members of the Armed
Forces and their family members equal access to voter registration
assistance, and for other purposes.

S. 1279

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) was added as

[[Page 18441]]

a cosponsor of S. 1279, a bill to amend the Medicare Prescription Drug,
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to extend the Rural
Community Hospital Demonstration Program.

S. 1304

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the names of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Baucus) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1304, a bill to restore the economic rights of
automobile dealers, and for other purposes.

S. 1312

At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Kaufman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1312, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage, as
supplies associated with the injection of insulin, of containment,
removal, decontamination and disposal of home-generated needles,
syringes, and other sharps through a sharps container, decontamination/
destruction device, or sharps-by-mail program or similar program under
part D of the Medicare program.

S. 1324

At the request of Mr. DeMint, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1324, a bill to ensure that
every American has a health insurance plan that they can afford, own,
and keep.

S. 1344

At the request of Mr. Vitter, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) and the Senator
from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) were added as cosponsors of S. 1344, a bill
to temporarily protect the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.

S. 1362

At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1362, a bill to provide grants to
States to ensure that all students in the middle grades are taught an
academically rigorous curriculum with effective supports so that
students complete the middle grades prepared for success in high school
and postsecondary endeavors, to improve State and district policies and
programs relating to the academic achievement of students in the middle
grades, to develop and implement effective middle grades models for
struggling students, and for other purposes.

S. 1408

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1408, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage alternative energy
investments and job creation.

S. 1415

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb), the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Merkley) and the
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) were added as cosponsors of S.
1415, a bill to amend the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act to ensure that absent uniformed services voters and overseas
voters are aware of their voting rights and have a genuine opportunity
to register to vote and have their absentee ballots cast and counted,
and for other purposes.

S. 1422

At the request of Mrs. Murray, the names of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell), the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) and
the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) were added as cosponsors of
S. 1422, a bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
clarify the eligibility requirements with respect to airline flight
crews.

S. 1439

At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1439, a bill to provide for
duty-free treatment of certain recreational performance outerwear, and
for other purposes.

S. 1469

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1469, a bill to provide
for the administration of Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial
as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.

S. 1474

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1474, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the provision prohibiting the
crediting of interest to the Highway Trust Fund, and for other
purposes.

S. CON. RES. 25

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Carper) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 25, a concurrent
resolution recognizing the value and benefits that community health
centers provide as health care homes for over 18,000,000 individuals,
and the importance of enabling health centers and other safety net
providers to continue to offer accessible, affordable, and continuous
care to their current patients and to every American who lacks access
to preventive and primary care services.

S. RES. 210

At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 210, a
resolution designating the week beginning on November 9, 2009, as
National School Psychology Week.

S. RES. 212

At the request of Mr. Johanns, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 212, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that any savings under the Medicare
program should be invested back into the Medicare program, rather than
creating new entitlement programs.

AMENDMENT NO. 1501

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1501 intended
to be proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Risch) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1501 intended to be
proposed to S. 1390, supra.

AMENDMENT NO. 1514

At the request of Mr. Sanders, the name of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1514 intended to
be proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1515

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Burr), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Harkin), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 1515 proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1517

At the request of Mr. Bunning, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1517 intended
to be proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

[[Page 18442]]

AMENDMENT NO. 1528

At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the names of the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1528 proposed to S. 1390, an
original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1528 proposed to
S. 1390, supra.

AMENDMENT NO. 1543

At the request of Mr. Risch, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1543 intended
to be proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1558

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
1558 intended to be proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1597

At the request of Mr. Brownback, the names of the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) and the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) were added as cosponsors of amendment
No. 1597 proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1599

At the request of Mr. Begich, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1599 intended
to be proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1618

At the request of Mr. Thune, the names of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1618 proposed to S. 1390, an
original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1621

At the request of Mrs. Shaheen, the names of the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. Bond) and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1621 intended to be proposed to S.
1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1628

At the request of Ms. Collins, her name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1628 proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
At the request of Mr. Bennett, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 1628 proposed to S. 1390, supra.

AMENDMENT NO. 1635

At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Merkley) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker) were
added as cosponsors of amendment No. 1635 intended to be proposed to S.
1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 1637

At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 1637 intended to
be proposed to S. 1390, an original bill to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mrs. McCASKILL:
S. 1476. A bill to require all new and upgraded fuel pumps to be
equipped with automatic temperature compensation equipment, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, today I am here to talk about a simple
bill that would correct a serious injustice.
Each year U.S. consumers spend $2.57 billion more than they should
for gasoline and diesel fuel. This is because they are buying hot fuel.
The physics behind hot fuel are fairly simple. Retailers currently
measure our gasoline as it if is stored at 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, if the temperature increases, as it often does during the
summer or in warm climates, the gasoline expands so that consumers are
getting less energy per gallon of fuel. Yet, when consumers buy hot
fuel, they are paying the same amount even though they are getting less
energy.
This problem can be easily solved by installing temperature
compensating equipment that will regulate the distribution of fuel
based on its temperature at the time of purchase. A similar policy was
implemented in Canada 15 years ago because retailers were losing money
due to the cold temperature of the fuel they were selling; and earlier
this year, the U.S. retailer Costco Warehouse, LLC agreed to install
this temperature compensating equipment as a result of a legal
settlement.
Today, I am introducing legislation that would require all retailers
of gasoline to install temperature compensating equipment on their
retail fuel pumps. The Future Accountability in Retail Fuel Act of
2009, or the FAIR Fuel Act, is not intended to be onerous. It would
simply require that within 6 years after enactment of this legislation
all retail gasoline pumps would include automatic temperature
compensating equipment. Prior to that 6 year timeline, if a retailer
replaces their pumps, they must replace it with a pump that will be
able to compensate for temperature fluctuations. Rural retail gasoline
owners are exempt from this replacement requirement and the bill
provides grant assistance for small retail owners to retrofit or
purchase pumps with temperature compensating equipment.
American families deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to get
what they pay for. With the current economic crisis and the high prices
of gasoline, every penny we can save the consumer will go along way to
helping

[[Page 18443]]

them survive these tough times. This legislation will help to achieve
this goal. It will finally give consumers the fairness they deserve.
I am pleased that this bill has been endorsed by the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association, OOIDA, USPIRG and Consumer Watchdog. I
look forward to working with the members of the Commerce Committee and
the full Senate in getting this legislation passed. I think we owe it
to the American consumers.
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. 1476

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 ``Future Accountability in
Retail Fuel Act'' or the ``FAIR Fuel Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Automatic temperature compensation equipment.--The term
``automatic temperature compensation equipment'' has the
meaning given the term in the National Institute of Standards
and Technology Handbook 44.
(2) Equivalent standard.--The term ``equivalent standard''
means any standard that prohibits the retail sale of gasoline
with energy content per gallon that is different than the
energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline stored at 60 degrees
Fahrenheit.
(3) Rural area.--The term ``rural area'' means any area
other than--
(A) a city, town, or unincorporated area that has a
population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants; or
(B) the urbanized area that is contiguous and adjacent to
such a city, town, or unincorporated area.
(4) Small-volume station.--The term ``small-volume
station'' means any retail fuel establishment that dispenses
fewer than 360,000 gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel per
year.

SEC. 3. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION EQUIPMENT.

(a) In General.--
(1) New motor fuel dispensers.--Beginning 180 days after
the issuance of final regulations under subsection (c), all
motor fuel dispensers that are newly installed or upgraded at
any retail fuel establishment in the United States shall be
equipped with automatic temperature compensation equipment to
ensure that any volume of gasoline or diesel fuel measured by
such dispenser for retail sale is equal to the volume that
such quantity of fuel would equal at the time of such sale if
the temperature of the fuel was 60 degrees Fahrenheit.
(2) Existing motor fuel dispensers.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
not later than 5 years after the issuance of final
regulations under subsection (c), all motor fuel dispensers
at any retail fuel establishment in the United States shall
be equipped with the automatic temperature compensation
equipment described in paragraph (1).
(B) Small-volume stations.--Small-volume stations located
in rural areas shall not be subject to the requirement under
subparagraph (A).
(b) Inspections.--
(1) Annual inspection.--Beginning on the date described in
subsection (a), State inspectors conducting an initial or
annual inspection of motor fuel dispensers are authorized to
determine if such dispensers are equipped with the automatic
temperature compensation equipment required under subsection
(a).
(2) Notification.--If the State inspector determines that a
motor fuel dispenser does not comply with the requirement
under subsection (a), the State inspector is authorized to
notify the Federal Trade Commission, through an electronic
notification system developed by the Commission, of such
noncompliance.
(3) Follow-up inspection.--Not earlier than 180 days after
a motor fuel dispenser is found to be out of compliance with
the requirement under subsection (a), the Federal Trade
Commission shall coordinate a follow-up inspection of such
motor fuel dispenser.
(4) Fine.--
(A) In general.--The owner or operator of any retail fuel
establishment with a motor fuel dispenser subject to the
requirement under subsection (a) that is determined to be out
of compliance with such requirement shall be subject to a
fine equal to $5,000 for each noncompliant motor fuel
dispenser.
(B) Additional fine.--If a motor fuel dispenser is
determined to be out of compliance during a follow-up
inspection, the owner or operator of the retail fuel
establishment at which such motor fuel dispenser is located
shall be subject to an additional fine equal to $5,000.
(5) Use of fines.--Any amounts collected under paragraph
(4) shall be deposited into the trust fund established under
section 4.
(c) Rulemaking.--
(1) Commencement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade Commission, in
consultation with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, shall commence a rulemaking procedure to
implement the requirement under subsection (a).
(2) Final regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Trade
Commission shall issue final regulations to implement the
requirement under subsection (a), including specifying which
volume correction factor tables shall be used for the range
of gasoline and diesel fuel products that are sold to retail
customers in the United States.

SEC. 4. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION EQUIPMENT GRANT
PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment of Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Automatic
Temperature Compensation Equipment Trust Fund'' (referred to
in this section as the ``Trust Fund'').
(2) Transfers.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the Trust Fund out of the general fund of the
Treasury an amount equal to the amount collected as fines
under section 3(b)(4).
(3) Investment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
such portion of the Trust Fund as is not required to meet
current withdrawals. Such investments may be made only in
interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
(b) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to
use amounts in the Trust Fund for grants to owners and
operators of retail fuel establishments to offset the costs
associated with the installation of automatic temperature
compensation equipment on motor fuel dispensers.
(2) Maximum amount.--The Secretary may not award a grant
under this subsection in excess of--
(A) $1,000 per motor fuel dispenser; or
(B) $10,000 per grant recipient.
(3) Eligible recipients.--An owner or operator of not more
than 5 retail fuel establishments is eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection.
(4) Use of grant funds.--Grant funds received under this
subsection may be used to offset the costs incurred by owners
and operators of retail establishments to acquire and install
automatic temperature compensation equipment in accordance
with the requirement under section 3(a).
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this subsection.
(c) Reimbursement of State Inspection Costs.--The Secretary
of Commerce is authorized to use amounts in the Trust Fund to
reimburse States for the costs incurred by the States to--
(1) inspect motor fuel dispensers for compliance with the
requirement under section 3(a); and
(2) notify the Secretary of Commerce of any noncompliance
with such requirement.

SEC. 5. SAVINGS PROVISION.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to preempt a State
from enacting a law that imposes an equivalent standard or a
more stringent standard concerning the retail sale of
gasoline at certain temperatures.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1477. A bill to establish a user fee for follow-up reinspections
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that would
charge a reinspection fee for goods that fail FDA inspection for good
manufacturing practices. Currently, businesses do not have to pay for
the second inspection if they fail. Essentially, then, the FDA is
absorbing this extra cost. This Nation faces difficult enough choices
without subsidizing private companies that fail basic inspections. I am
pleased to credit the Bush administration for originally proposing this
fee, which is again proposed in President Obama's fiscal year 2010
budget. This fee carries proposed savings of an estimated $24 million
per year, and could save as much as $115 million over 5 years.
We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is being used efficiently and
effectively, and this measure would help in our ongoing efforts to
streamline government programs and reduce the Federal budget deficit.
FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach testified about these fees
before the House Agriculture, Rural Development, and FDA Appropriations
Subcommittee in 2006. He believes, and I agree, that the reinspection
fee will motivate businesses to comply with long-established health and
safety standards. Businesses

[[Page 18444]]

that do not meet Federal standards should bear the burden of the
reinspection, rather than getting a free pass at the taxpayer's
expense.
One of the main reasons I first ran for the U.S. Senate was to
restore fiscal responsibility to the Federal budget. I have worked
throughout my Senate career to eliminate wasteful spending and to
reduce the budget deficit. Unless we return to fiscally responsible
budgeting, Congress will saddle our nation's younger generations with
an enormous financial burden for years to come. This bill is one small
step in that direction.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Begich, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Tester):
S. 1480. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to establish
a program to improve the health and education of children through
grants to expand school breakfast programs, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Kohl to
introduce the Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act as part
of my continued efforts to improve student achievement in our Nation's
schools. One part of student performance that is often overlooked is
nutrition, which can have a significant impact on student achievement.
I know many of my colleagues share my support for school programs that
help alleviate hunger for the most in-need students, such as the Free
and Reduced Price Lunch Program, as well as those programs that provide
more nutritious food, such as the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack
program.
I am sure that I am not the only member of this body who grew up
hearing that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I was
lucky never to have to worry about going hungry, and my parents did not
have to choose between giving their children lunch or breakfast. The
fact is, that is a choice many parents do have to make today, even if
they get the help of reduced price meals. The current economic
difficulties and rising unemployment have only increased the burdens
facing low income families in Wisconsin and around the country as they
struggle to provide nutritious meals for their children.
The Student Breakfast and Education Improvement Act would provide
grants for schools wishing to begin or expand universal school
breakfast programs. Studies show that kids who eat breakfast perform
better in school and on tests, and they tend to be less disruptive to
the class. I have heard many stories from teachers, school nurses, and
other school officials over the years to confirm this. In fact, in my
home State of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee Public Schools have been working
with the Hunger Task Force for the past few years to implement
universal school breakfast programs, which they have in place now in
more than 80 schools. This program, which has expanded in its second
year, has proven popular with students, teachers, and parents.
This bill would target the most in-need schools--those with 65
percent or more of students eligible for the free and reduced price
lunch program--with the funds necessary to implement a universal free
breakfast program. The grants, which could be used in a number of ways,
aim to help schools overcome the numerous barriers faced in trying to
create a school breakfast program.
Our Nation faces a series of pressing education challenges in its
schools, including most significantly a large achievement gap and
graduation rate gap among minority and low income students. After
decades of civil rights struggles, public education should provide all
our students with access to equal opportunities, but the quality of
public education provided to students of color and low-income students
in urban and rural Wisconsin and around the country still does not come
close to affording many of these students an equal chance for success.
Too often these students learn in crumbling and outdated buildings,
they do not have the same access to high quality technology in their
classrooms, they are taught by the least experienced teachers, and they
often do not have adequate access to important resources like school
counselors and nurses.
These and a number of other factors contribute to the achievement gap
in our Nation's schools and the Federal Government can help to address
this gap by promoting smarter and more flexible accountability
structures and increased supports for schools during the upcoming
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Congress
should also help to address some of the many other issues facing our
nation's students living in poverty issues that may not seem directly
related to education, but impact the academic growth of students
including hunger, affordable housing, and crime. This bill takes an
important step to address hunger and also seeks to improve nutrition
education by providing funds to expand school breakfast programs, boost
collaboration between local farmers and schools, expand service-
learning opportunities in our classrooms, and improve nutrition
education programming for students.
In this economy, more and more parents are forced to make these kinds
of decisions, and the school meal programs can provide a tremendous
relief. As we look forward to reauthorizing the Child Nutrition Act, it
is vital that we take stock of the successes and limitations of
existing programs. School breakfast faces a number of hurdles that,
quite simply, other school feeding programs do not. Chief of those is
time. For some students, getting to school early is impossible; for
some, the lure of breakfast is not a strong enough draw to get up
earlier. These are problems that schools across the country are facing
and solving with creativity and dedication. This legislation will help
support the innovative work going on in some of our nation's schools
and will help to scale up successful nutrition programs in other
schools so that hopefully one day, none of America's students will
start the school day hungry.
______

By Mr. NELSON, of Florida (for himself and Mr. Martinez):
S. 1484. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create
Catastrophe Savings Accounts; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last year we were all
transfixed by the non-stop news coverage of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike
as they grew into monster storms, crossing the Caribbean and Gulf of
Mexico and leaving a trail of misery in their wake. Ike, the third most
destructive storm in the history of the U.S., made landfall in
Galveston, Texas, and then tracked through Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana,
Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, killing 112 people and causing more
than $24 billion in damage.
Since 2003, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones have caused more
than 2,000 deaths in the U.S. Forty percent of all hurricanes that make
landfall in the U.S. hit Florida.
Insured losses from hurricanes average more than $5.2 billion per
year. A recent study of hurricane-related damages over the last century
suggests that economic losses will double every 10 years. With more
than 50 percent of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of the
coast, and with 180 million people visiting the coast annually, the
risks to life and property are growing.
Hurricanes, however, do not just impact the coasts. These extreme
events also have national consequences, such as increased fuel prices,
displaced populations, and severe inland flooding.
The American public is increasingly aware of the potential for high
recovery costs and financing of natural disaster losses. I cannot
overstate the importance of prior preparation and insurance coverage
for large catastrophic risks--including natural disasters such as
hurricanes and earthquakes--as well as efforts to promote a stable,
affordable catastrophic insurance market.
This is why today Senator Martinez and I are introducing four bills:
the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009,
S. 1487, the Policyholder Disaster Protection

[[Page 18445]]

Act of 2009, S. 1486, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009, S.
1484, and the National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009, 1485.
These bills take a pro-active approach in addressing these natural
catastrophe concerns.
The National Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009 will expand
the scope of fundamental research on hurricanes. The bill is aimed at
improving hurricane forecasting and tracking and helping us find better
ways to mitigate their impact. The Act will establish a National
Science Foundation (NSF) grant program for hurricane and tropical
cyclone research and bring together a task force, jointly chaired by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and NSF.
The second bill, the Commission on Catastrophic Disaster Risk and
Insurance Act of 2009, establishes the bipartisan Commission on
Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance. This commission will assess
the condition of the property and casualty insurance and reinsurance
markets in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in
2005, as well as the four major hurricanes that struck the U.S. in
2004. It will also evaluate the country's ongoing exposure to
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods. Finally, the
commission will recommend and report legislative and regulatory changes
that will improve the domestic and international financial health and
competitiveness of property and casualty insurance markets, assuring
the availability of adequate insurance when an insured event occurs, as
well as the best possible range of insurance products at competitive
prices.
The Policyholder Disaster Protection Act of 2009 amends the Internal
Revenue Code to allow property and casualty insurance companies to
create tax-exempt disaster protection funds and to make tax deductible
contributions to those funds for the payment of policyholders' claims
arising from certain catastrophic events, such as windstorms,
earthquakes, fires, and floods.
Finally, the Catastrophe Savings Accounts Act of 2009 amends the
Internal Revenue Code to create tax-exempt catastrophe savings
accounts. Individuals could take tax-free distributions from these
accounts to pay expenses resulting from a presidentially declared major
disaster. The bill limits catastrophe savings account balances to
$2,000 for individuals with homeowner insurance deductibles of not more
than $1,000, and the lesser of $15,000 or twice the homeowner's
insurance deductible for individuals with deductibles of more than
$1,000.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the entire country
experiences financial losses when hurricanes hit. It is time for us to
take the bull by the horns and pass legislation that plans in advance
for these and other natural disasters.
As we are in the hurricane season, it will become painfully apparent
just how precarious a lot of the construction is, how precarious
building codes are not being fairly and judiciously administered, and
it will become evident what an economic disaster even a mild hurricane
can cause when it hits the coast. And Lord knows, if the big one hits
an urbanized part of the coast--and the big one is a category 4 or a
category 5 hurricane--it is going to create economic chaos. It is going
to cause the insurance industry to be on the brink of total collapse.
And it will ultimately, just like Katrina, end up having the U.S.
Government pay a major part of the economic bailout consequences of a
natural disaster, such as a hurricane or an earthquake hitting the
United States. We ought to get ahead of it and we ought to plan for it,
and that is what this package of four bills Senator Martinez and I are
offering will do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1484

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 ``Catastrophe Savings Accounts
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. CATASTROPHE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

(a) In General.--Subchapter F of Chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exempt organizations) is
amended by adding at the end the following new part:

``PART IX--CATASTROPHE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS

``SEC. 530A. CATASTROPHE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.

``(a) General Rule.--A Catastrophe Savings Account shall be
exempt from taxation under this subtitle. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, such account shall be subject to the
taxes imposed by section 511 (relating to imposition of tax
on unrelated business income of charitable organizations).
``(b) Catastrophe Savings Account.--For purposes of this
section, the term `Catastrophe Savings Account' means a trust
created or organized in the United States for the exclusive
benefit of an individual or his beneficiaries and which is
designated (in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe)
at the time of the establishment of the trust as a
Catastrophe Savings Account, but only if the written
governing instrument creating the trust meets the following
requirements:
``(1) Except in the case of a qualified rollover
contribution--
``(A) no contribution will be accepted unless it is in
cash, and
``(B) contributions will not be accepted in excess of the
account balance limit specified in subsection (c).
``(2) The trustee is a bank (as defined in section 408(n))
or another person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Secretary that the manner in which that person will
administer the trust will be consistent with the requirements
of this section.
``(3) The interest of an individual in the balance of his
account is nonforfeitable.
``(4) The assets of the trust shall not be commingled with
other property except in a common trust fund or common
investment fund.
``(c) Account Balance Limit.--The aggregate account balance
for all Catastrophe Savings Accounts maintained for the
benefit of an individual (including qualified rollover
contributions) shall not exceed--
``(1) in the case of an individual whose qualified
deductible is not more than $1,000, $2,000, and
``(2) in the case of an individual whose qualified
deductible is more than $1,000, the amount equal to the
lesser of--
``(A) $15,000, or
``(B) twice the amount of the individual's qualified
deductible.
``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified catastrophe expenses.--The term `qualified
catastrophe expenses' means expenses paid or incurred by
reason of a major disaster that has been declared by the
President under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
``(2) Qualified deductible.--With respect to an individual,
the term `qualified deductible' means the annual deductible
for the individual's homeowners' insurance policy.
``(3) Qualified rollover contribution.--The term `qualified
rollover contribution' means a contribution to a Catastrophe
Savings Account--
``(A) from another such account of the same beneficiary,
but only if such amount is contributed not later than the
60th day after the distribution from such other account, and
``(B) from a Catastrophe Savings Account of a spouse of the
beneficiary of the account to which the contribution is made,
but only if such amount is contributed not later than the
60th day after the distribution from such other account.
``(e) Tax Treatment of Distributions.--
``(1) In general.--Any distribution from a Catastrophe
Savings Account shall be includible in the gross income of
the distributee in the manner as provided in section 72.
``(2) Distributions for qualified catastrophe expenses.--
``(A) In general.--No amount shall be includible in gross
income under paragraph (1) if the qualified catastrophe
expenses of the distributee during the taxable year are not
less than the aggregate distributions during the taxable
year.
``(B) Distributions in excess of expenses.--If such
aggregate distributions exceed such expenses during the
taxable year, the amount otherwise includible in gross income
under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by the amount which
bears the same ratio to the amount which would be includible
in gross income under paragraph (1) (without regard to this
subparagraph) as the qualified catastrophe expenses bear to
such aggregate distributions.
``(3) Additional tax for distributions not used for
qualified catastrophe expenses.--The tax imposed by this
chapter for any taxable year on any taxpayer who receives a
payment or distribution from a Catastrophe Savings Account
which is includible in gross income shall be increased by 10
percent of the amount which is so includible.
``(4) Retirement distributions.--No amount shall be
includible in gross income

[[Page 18446]]

under paragraph (1) (or subject to an additional tax under
paragraph (3)) if the payment or distribution is made on or
after the date on which the distributee attains age 62.
``(f) Tax Treatment of Accounts.--Rules similar to the
rules of paragraphs (2) and (4) of section 408(e) shall apply
to any Catastrophe Savings Account.''.
(b) Tax on Excess Contributions.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 4973 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to tax on excess
contributions to certain tax-favored accounts and annuities)
is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (4), by
inserting ``or'' at the end of paragraph (5), and by
inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) a Catastrophe Savings Account (as defined in section
530A),''.
(2) Excess contribution.--Section 4973 of such Code is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Excess Contributions to Catastrophe Savings
Accounts.--For purposes of this section, in the case of
Catastrophe Savings Accounts (within the meaning of section
530A), the term `excess contributions' means the amount by
which the aggregate account balance for all Catastrophe
Savings Accounts maintained for the benefit of an individual
exceeds the account balance limit defined in section
530A(c)(1).''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The table of parts for
subchapter F of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Part IX. Catastrophe Savings Accounts.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

S. 1485

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National
Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 4. Definitions.
Sec. 5. National Hurricane Research Initiative.
Sec. 6. National Hurricane Research Task Force.
Sec. 7. National Hurricane Research.
Sec. 8. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 9. Independent review.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Hurricanes and other tropical cyclones have directly
caused more than 2,000 deaths in the United States since 2003
and account for approximately 66 percent of insured losses
due to natural hazards.
(2) While the ability to understand and predict hurricanes
and other tropical cyclones has improved since 1999,
particularly with respect to storm tracking, much remains
unknown concerning--
(A) storm dynamics, rapid intensity change, and impact on
extratropical cyclones;
(B) the interactions of storms with natural and built
environments; and
(C) the impacts to and response of society to destructive
storms.
(3) Several expert assessments of the state of hurricane
science and research needs have been published, including--
(A) the January 2007 report by the National Science Board
titled, ``Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National
Hurricane Initiative'';
(B) the February 2007 report by the Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting
Research entitled, ``Interagency Strategic Research Plan for
Tropical Cyclones: The Way Ahead''; and
(C) reports from the Hurricane Intensity Working Group of
the National Science Advisory Board of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
(4) In the June 2005 publication, ``Grand Challenges for
Disaster Reduction'', and in related 2008 implementation
plans for hurricane and coastal inundation hazards the
Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction of the Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources of the National Science and
Technology Council prioritized Federal science and technology
investments needed to reduce future loss of life and property
caused, both directly and indirectly, by hurricanes and other
coastal storms.
(5) A National Hurricane Research Initiative complements
the objectives of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction
Program.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that, consistent with the
findings of the expert assessments and strategies described
in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 2, a National Hurricane
Research Initiative should be established to address the
urgent and compelling need to undertake long-term,
coordinated, multi-entity hurricane research focused on--
(1) conducting high priority scientific, engineering, and
related social and behavioral studies; and
(2) effectively applying the research results of such
studies to mitigate the impacts of hurricanes on society.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the National
Hurricane Research Task Force established under section 6(a).
(2) Eligible entities.--The term ``eligible entities''
means State, regional, and local government agencies and
departments, tribal governments, universities, research
institutes, and nongovernmental organizations.
(3) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 102 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
(4) Initiative.--The term ``Initiative'' means the National
Hurricane Research Initiative established under section
5(a)(1).
(5) National windstorm impact reduction program.--The term
``National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program'' means the
program established by section 204 of the National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 15703).
(6) State.--The term ``State'' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
(7) Tribal government.--The term ``tribal government''
means the governing body of an Indian tribe.
(8) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means
the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere.

SEC. 5. NATIONAL HURRICANE RESEARCH INITIATIVE.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary, in collaboration with
the Director of the National Science Foundation, shall
establish an initiative to be known as the ``National
Hurricane Research Initiative'' for the purposes described in
paragraph (2). The Initiative shall consist of--
(A) the activities of the Under Secretary under this
section;
(B) the activities of the Task Force under section 6; and
(C) the research carried out under section 7.
(2) Purposes.--The purposes described in this paragraph are
as follows:
(A) To improve understanding and prediction of hurricanes
and other tropical storms, including--
(i) storm tracking and prediction;
(ii) forecasting of storm formation, intensity, and wind
and rain patterns, both within the tropics and as the storms
move poleward;
(iii) storm surge modeling, inland flood modeling, and
coastal erosion;
(iv) the interaction with and impacts of storms with the
natural and built environment; and
(v) the impacts to and response of society to destructive
storms, including the socio-economic impacts requiring
emergency management, response, and recovery.
(B) To develop infrastructure that is resilient to the
forces associated with hurricanes and other tropical storms.
(C) To mitigate the impacts of hurricanes on coastal
populations, the coastal built environment, and natural
resources, including--
(i) coral reefs;
(ii) mangroves;
(iii) wetlands; and
(iv) other natural systems that can reduce hurricane wind
and flood forces.
(D) To provide training for the next generation of
hurricane researchers and forecasters.
(b) Implementation Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall develop
a detailed, 5-year implementation plan for the Initiative
that--
(A) incorporates the priorities for Federal science and
technology investments set forth in the June 2005
publication, ``Grand Challenges for Disaster Reduction'', and
in related 2008 implementation plans for hurricane and
coastal inundation hazards of the Subcommittee on Disaster
Reduction of the Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources of the National Science and Technology Council;
(B) to the extent practicable and as appropriate,
establishes benchmarks, milestones, goals, and performance
measures to track progress of the research carried out under
the Initiative and the application of research results for
reducing hurricane losses and related public benefits, as
recommended by the Task Force under section 6(f)(2); and
(C) identifies opportunities to leverage the results of the
research carried out under section 7 with other Federal and
non-Federal hurricane research, coordination, and loss-
reduction initiatives, such as--
(i) the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program
established by section 204(a) of the National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 15703);
(ii) the National Flood Insurance Program established under
chapter 1 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 4011 et seq.);
(iii) the initiatives of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.);
(iv) wind hazard mitigation initiatives carried out by a
State;

[[Page 18447]]

(v) the Hurricane Forecast Improvement Project fo the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
(vi) the Working Group for Tropical Cyclone Research of the
Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services
and Supporting Research.
(2) Review.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall ensure that
the implementation plan required by paragraph (1) is reviewed
by--
(A) the Director of the National Science Foundation;
(B) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(C) the Director of the National Institute for Standards
and Technology;
(D) the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
(E) the Commander of the Naval Meterorology and
Oceanography Command;
(F) the Associate Administrator for Science Mission
Directorate of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration; and
(G) the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey.
(3) Revisions.--The Under Secretary shall revise the
implementation plan required by paragraph (1) not less
frequently than once every 5 years to address and respond to
the findings and recommendations of the Task Force.
(c) Research.--
(1) Establishment of research objectives.--The Under
Secretary shall, in consultation with the Director fo the
National Science Foundation, establish objectives for
research carried out pursuant to section 7 that are based on
the findings of the expert assessments and strategies
described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 2.
(2) Coordination.--In carrying out the provisions of this
subsection, the Under Secretary shall coordinate with the
Task Force to the extent practicable.
(d) National Workshops and Conferences.--The Under
Secretary, in coordination with the Director of the National
Science Foundation and the Task Force, shall carry out a
series of national workshops and conferences that assemble a
broad collection of scientific disciplines--
(1) to address hurricane-related research questions; and
(2) to encourage researchers to work collaboratively to
carry out the purposes described in subsection (a)(2).
(e) Public Internet Website.--The Under Secretary, in
coordination with the Task Force, shall facilitate the
establishment of a public Internet website for the
Initiative--
(1) to foster collaboration and interactive dialogues among
the Under Secretary, the Director of the National Science
Foundation, the Task Force, and the public; and
(2) to enhance public access to Initiative documents and
products, including--
(A) information about the members of the Task Force,
including their affiliation and contact information;
(B) meeting agenda and minutes of the Task Force;
(C) reports and publications of the Initiative;
(D) the most recent 5-year implementation plan developed
under subsection (b); and
(E) the most recent annual report submitted to Congress
under subsection (f).
(f) Annual Report.--
(1) Requirement for annual crosscut budget and report.--The
Under Secretary, in conjunction with members of the Task
Force who represent Federal agencies, the Office of Science
and Technology Policy, and the Office of Management and
Budget, shall submit to Congress each year, together with
documents submitted to Congress in support of the budget of
the President for the fiscal year beginning in such year (as
submitted pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code), a coordinated annual report for the Initiative for the
fiscal year in which the report is submitted and the last
fiscal year ending before such submittal.
(2) Contents.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall--
(A) document the funds transferred by the Under Secretary
to the heads of other Federal agencies under section 8(b);
and
(B) document the grants and contracts awarded to eligible
entities under section 7;
(C) for each agency that receives funds under section 8(b)
and eligible entity that receives a grant or contract under
section 7, identify what major activities were undertaken
with such funds, grants, and contracts; and
(D) for each research activity or group of activities
described in section 7(c), as appropriate, identify any
accomplishments, which may include full or partial
achievement of benchmarks, milestones, goals, performance
measure targets established for the implementation plan under
subsection (b)(1)(B).

SEC. 6. NATIONAL HURRICANE RESEARCH TASK FORCE.

(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall
establish a task force to be known as the ``National
Hurricane Research Task Force'' to facilitate and coordinate
the efforts of Federal agencies and eligible entities in
support of the Initiative.
(b) Membership.--The Task Force shall be composed of the
following:
(1) The Under Secretary, or the Under Secretary's designee.
(2) The Director of the National Science Foundation, or the
Director's designee.
(3) The Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, or the Director's designee.
(4) The Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Secretary's
designee.
(5) The Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, or the Commanding General's designee.
(6) The Director of the United States Geological Survey, or
the Director's designee.
(7) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, or the Administrator's designee.
(8) One member shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Defense, who shall be a representative of the Office of Naval
Research or the Chief of Naval Operations.
(9) The Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and
Supporting Research.
(10) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, or the Director's designee.
(11) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
or the Director's designee.
(12) The Chair of the Executive Committee of the Federal
Geographic Data Committee, or the Chair's designee.
(13) Such other members from Federal agencies as the
chairpersons of the Task Force jointly consider appropriate.
(14) Members who are not employees of the Federal
Government, selected jointly by the chairpersons of the Task
Force in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences
and the National Academy of Engineering, as follows:
(A) At least 3 members who are prominent in the fields of
hurricane science, engineering, social science, or related
fields.
(B) At least 1 member who represents a State government
agency responsible for emergency management and response.
(C) At least 3 members who represent the views of local
governments, tribal governments, and nongovernmental
organizations.
(D) At least 2 members who represent private sector
interests engaged in hurricane research, preparedness,
response, or recovery.
(E) At least 1 member who represents a State floodplain or
coastal zone manager.
(F) Such other members as may be appropriate.
(c) Chairpersons.--The concurrent chairpersons of the Task
Force shall be the following:
(1) The Under Secretary, or the Under Secretary's designee
under subsection (b)(1).
(2) The Director of the National Science Foundation, or the
Director's designee under subsection (b)(2).
(3) The Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, or the Director's designee under subsection
(b)(3).
(d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Task Force shall hold
its first meeting.
(e) Meetings.--The Task Force shall meet at the call of the
chairpersons of the Task Force, but not less frequently than
twice each year.
(f) Duties.--The duties of the Task Force are as follows:
(1) To provide assistance to the Under Secretary with the
development of the 5-year implementation plan required by
section 5(b).
(2) Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act and in consideration of the expert findings
referred to in section 2(3)--
(A) to develop and furnish to the Under Secretary findings
and recommendations, as appropriate, for monitoring research
progress and for a set of benchmarks, milestones, goals, and
performance measures to track the transition and application
of research results for reducing hurricane losses and related
public benefits under the Initiative;
(B) to identify interim and long-term goals of the research
program under section 7; and
(C) to prioritize the activities of the Initiative over a
10-year period.
(3) To improve communication and coordination among Federal
agencies with respect to hurricane-related research,
developments in hurricane forecasting and operations, and
best practices for applying results of Initiative research to
reduce loss of life and property damage resulting from
hurricanes.
(4) To identify opportunities to leverage the activities
and products of the Initiative with the National Windstorm
Impact Reduction Program and other Federal and non-Federal
hurricane research, coordination, and loss reduction
programs.
(5) To recommend a model described in section 7(c)(1)(A)
and monitor progress on development of such model.
(6) To make recommendations to the Under Secretary and the
Director of the National Science Foundation on research
priorities and content and structure of the program
established under section 7(a)(1).
(7) To make recommendations on national hurricane research
observation and data requirements.
(8) To assess opportunities to leverage the capabilities of
the following stakeholders:
(A) Federal, State, and local governments.
(B) Tribal governments.

[[Page 18448]]

(C) Academic and research institutions.
(D) Entities from the private sector.
(E) Nongovernmental organizations.
(9) To evaluate the extent to which the stakeholders
described in paragraph (8) have been engaged as partners and
collaborators in the Initiative.
(10) To assist the Under Secretary in facilitating the
development of the annual report required by section 5(f).
(11) To review such report and provide comments to the
Under Secretary.
(12) To submit to the National Science and Technology
Council and to Congress, together with documents submitted to
Congress in support of the budget of the President for the
2012 fiscal year (as submitted pursuant to section 1105 of
title 31, United States Code), a report containing a
comprehensive review of the progress of the Initiative in
meeting the needs of the United States to understand
hurricanes, their impacts on natural and built environment,
and methods to mitigate such impacts.
(g) Advisory Bodies.--
(1) Authority to establish.--The Task Force may establish
such advisory bodies as the Task Force considers necessary to
assist the Task Force in its duties under subsection (f).
(2) Criteria.--An advisory body established under paragraph
(1) shall represent a broad variety of private and public
interests.
(h) Advisors to the Task Force.--The Task Force may seek
advice and input from any interested, knowledgeable, or
affected party as the Task Force considers necessary to carry
out the duties under subsection (f).
(i) Compensation.--
(1) In general.--All members of the Task Force who are
officers or employees of the United States shall serve
without compensation in addition to that received for their
services as officers or employees of the United States.
(2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Task Force shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Task Force.
(j) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairpersons may procure temporary and intermittent
services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States
Code, at rates for individuals which do not exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such
title.
(k) Volunteer Services.--Notwithstanding section 1342 of
title 31, United States Code, the Commission may accept and
use voluntary and uncompensated services as the Commission
determines necessary.
(l) Exemption From FACA Notice Requirement for Task Force
Advisory Bodies.--An advisory body established by the Task
Force under subsection (g) shall not be subject to section
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.
10(a)(2)).
(m) Termination of Task Force.--The Task Force shall
terminate on September 30, 2018.

SEC. 7. NATIONAL HURRICANE RESEARCH.

(a) National Science Foundation Competitive Grant Research
Program.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation, in coordination with the Under Secretary, shall
establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to
carry out--
(A) research described in subsection (c); or
(B) other research that is consistent with the research
objectives established under section 5(c)(1).
(2) Selection.--The National Science Foundation shall
select grant recipients under this section through its merit
review process.
(b) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Research Program.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall carry out a
program of research described in subsection (c) or other
research that is consistent with the research objectives
established under section 5(c)(1).
(2) Research activities.--Research carried out under
paragraph (1) may be carried out through--
(A) intramural research;
(B) awarding grants to eligible entities to carry out
research;
(C) contracting with eligible entities to carry out
research; or
(D) entering into cooperative agreements to carry out
research.
(c) Research.--The research described in this subsection is
research that is consistent with the purposes described in
section 5(a)(2) and is described by one or more of the
following:
(1) Fundamental hurricane research.--Fundamental hurricane
research, which may consist of the following:
(A) Community research models.--Research to support
continued development and maintenance of community weather
research and forecast models recommended by the Task Force
under section 6(f)(5), including advanced methods of
observing storm structure and assimilating observations into
the models, in which the agency or institution hosting the
models ensures broad access and use of the model by members
of the Task Force and the civilian research community.
(B) Predicting hurricane intensity and structure.--Research
to improve understanding and prediction of--
(i) storm formation and tracking with extended time scale
to weeks in advance;
(ii) rapid changes in storm size, motion, structure, and
intensity;
(iii) the internal dynamics of storms;
(iv) the transition to extratropical characteristics as
storms move poleward; and
(v) the interactions of storms with environmental
conditions, including the atmosphere, ocean, and land
surface.
(C) Understanding air and sea interactions.--Research
regarding observations, theory, and modeling to improve
understanding of air and sea interaction in hurricanes and
other high wind speed environments.
(D) Predicting storm surge, waves, rainfall, inland
flooding, and strong winds produced by hurricanes.--Research
to understand, model, and predict rainfall, coastal and
riverline flooding, high winds, and the potential occurrence
of tornadoes, including probabilistic modeling, mapping, and
visualization of risk.
(E) Relationships between hurricanes and climate
variability and change.--Research to improve the
understanding of the complex relationships between hurricanes
and climate on seasonal to decadal time scales, such as
research to determine the most effective methods to use
observational information and numerical-model simulations to
examine short-term and long-term impacts of climate on
changes in storm intensity, geographic distribution, and
frequency.
(F) Relationships between hurricanes and ecosystems.--
Research to improve the understanding of how hurricanes
affect ecosystems, landscapes, and natural resources and to
develop assessments for hurricane vulnerability and risk,
including--
(i) how ecosystems have been influenced by past hurricanes
and the ability and capacity of ecosystems to recover from
the effects of hurricanes;
(ii) how ecosystem management practices can minimize
disruptions to ecosystem functions and dependent economic
uses as a result of hurricanes; and
(iii) the role of natural features, such as barrier
islands, wetlands, and mangroves, in--

(I) acting as natural buffers to wind and flood forces; and
(II) improving coastal resiliency.

(2) Technology assessment and development.--Technology
assessment and development, which may consist of the
following:
(A) Improved observation of hurricanes and tropical
storms.--Research to improve hurricane and tropical storm
observations and to improve the understanding of the complex
nature of storms and their interaction with the natural and
built environment through development and application of new
technologies, such as--
(i) mobile radars and advanced airborne observing
technologies;
(ii) global positioning system technology;
(iii) unmanned vehicles;
(iv) satellite-based sensors;
(v) ground-based and aerial wireless sensors; and
(vi) other geospatial technologies and geospatial data,
including bathymetry and elevation.
(B) Computational capability.--Research and development of
robust computational capabilities and facilities required to
conduct numerical and other types of modeling that support
the scientific studies and research carried out under the
Initiative as well as data acquisition and modeling during
hurricane events, including research to improve understanding
of the efficient utility of multiple models that--
(i) require sharing and interoperability of databases,
computing environments, networks, visualization tools, and
analytic systems that improve on such technologies that are
available on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii) are used for transitioning hurricane research assets
into operational practice.
(C) Technologies for disaster response and recovery.--
Research to improve damage assessments after a hurricane and
emergency communications during hurricane response and
recovery, including improvements to--
(i) communications networks for government agencies and
nongovernmental entities;
(ii) network interoperability;
(iii) cyber-security during hurricane or storm related
emergencies; and
(iv) use of models, remote sensing, and statistically based
ground sampling to support effective and rapid damage
assessment to scale disaster response and recovery needs.
(3) Research integration, transition, and application.--
Research on integration, transition, and application of
research results, which may consist of the following:
(A) Transition of research to operations.--Research to
develop mechanisms to accelerate the application of improved
models, observations, communication, and risk assessment
systems, and related research products to forecasting and
other operational settings, including use of 1 or more
developmental test beds.

[[Page 18449]]

(B) Assessing vulnerable infrastructure.--Developing a
national engineering assessment and clearinghouse of coastal
infrastructure by leveraging and building upon existing
Federal activities, resources, and research, including
infrastructure related to levees, sea walls, and similar
coastal flood-protection structures, drainage systems,
bridges, water and sewage utilities, power, and
communications, to determine the level of vulnerability of
such infrastructure to damage from hurricanes.
(C) Interaction of hurricanes with engineered structures.--
Research to improve understanding of the impacts of
hurricanes and tropical storms on buildings, structures, and
housing combined with modeling that is essential for guiding
the creation of improved building designs and construction
codes in locations particularly vulnerable to hurricanes.
(D) Evacuation planning.--Research to improve the manner in
which hurricane-related information is provided to, and
utilized by, the public and government officials, including
research to assist officials of State, tribal, regional, or
local governments in--
(i) determining the circumstances in which evacuations are
required; and
(ii) carrying out such evacuations.
(E) Decision support.--Research to--
(i) assess the social, behavioral, and economic factors
that influence decision making by the public, government
officials, nongovernmental entities, the private sector, and
other impacted populations before, during, and in the
aftermath of hurricanes;
(ii) improve the translation of natural science and
engineering research carried out under the Initiative into
informed decision making that enables communities, economies,
and the man-made and natural environments to become resilient
to hurricane impacts, including development of effective risk
and vulnerability assessment and risk communication tools;
and
(iii) develop methods of assessing disaster recovery costs,
both government and nongovernment, and of comparing the
relative benefits of disaster mitigation methods with
disaster recovery costs.

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
for fiscal years 2010 through 2015 amounts as follows:
(1) To the Under Secretary, $18,750,000 to carry out
sections 5, 6, and 7(b), of which not less than $13,750,000
shall be used to carry such section 7(b).
(2) To the Director of the National Science Foundation,
$56,250,000 to carry out sections 5 and 7(a).
(b) Interagency Transfer of Funds.--
(1) Transfers by under secretary for oceans and
atmosphere.--Of amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a)(1), the
Under Secretary may transfer to the heads of other Federal
agencies such amounts as the Under Secretary considers
appropriate to carry out sections 5, 6, and 7(b).
(2) Transfers by director of the national science
foundation.--Of amounts appropriated pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under subsection (a)(2), the
Director of the National Science Foundation may transfer to
the heads of other Federal agencies such amounts as the
Director considers appropriate to carry out sections 5 and
7(a).

SEC. 9. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.

(a) Agreement.--
(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall seek to enter
into an agreement with the National Research Council of the
National Academies for the National Research Council to
perform the services covered by this section.
(2) Timing.--The Under Secretary shall seek to enter into
the agreement described in paragraph (1) not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Independent Review of National Hurricane Research
Initiative.--Under an agreement between the Under Secretary
and the National Research Council under this section, the
National Research Council shall carry out an independent
review of the Initiative. In carrying out the review, the
National Research Council shall review the following:
(1) Whether the Initiative has well-defined, prioritized,
and appropriate research objectives.
(2) Whether the Initiative is properly coordinated among
relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders.
(3) Whether the Initiative has allocated appropriate
resources to each of the research objectives.
(4) Whether suitable mechanisms exist for transitioning the
research results from the Initiative into operational
technologies and procedures and activities in a timely
manner.
(c) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall submit to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Science and Technology of the
House of Representatives a report on the results of the
review carried out under this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Under Secretary, $750,000 to carry
out this section.

S. 1486

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 ``Policyholder Disaster
Protection Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Rising costs resulting from natural disasters are
placing an increasing strain on the ability of property and
casualty insurance companies to assure payment of homeowners'
claims and other insurance claims arising from major natural
disasters now and in the future.
(2) Present tax laws do not provide adequate incentives to
assure that natural disaster insurance is provided or, where
such insurance is provided, that funds are available for
payment of insurance claims in the event of future
catastrophic losses from major natural disasters, as present
law requires an insurer wishing to accumulate surplus assets
for this purpose to do so entirely from its after-tax
retained earnings.
(3) Revising the tax laws applicable to the property and
casualty insurance industry to permit carefully controlled
accumulation of pretax dollars in separate reserve funds
devoted solely to the payment of claims arising from future
major natural disasters will provide incentives for property
and casualty insurers to make natural disaster insurance
available, will give greater protection to the Nation's
homeowners, small businesses, and other insurance consumers,
and will help assure the future financial health of the
Nation's insurance system as a whole.
(4) Implementing these changes will reduce the possibility
that a significant portion of the private insurance system
would fail in the wake of a major natural disaster and that
governmental entities would be required to step in to provide
relief at taxpayer expense.

SEC. 3. CREATION OF POLICYHOLDER DISASTER PROTECTION FUNDS;
CONTRIBUTIONS TO AND DISTRIBUTIONS FROM FUNDS;
OTHER RULES.

(a) Contributions to Policyholder Disaster Protection
Funds.--Subsection (c) of section 832 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to the taxable income of insurance
companies other than life insurance companies) is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (12), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(14) the qualified contributions to a policyholder
disaster protection fund during the taxable year.''.
(b) Distributions From Policyholder Disaster Protection
Funds.--Paragraph (1) of section 832(b) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (E) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) the amount of any distributions from a policyholder
disaster protection fund during the taxable year, except that
a distribution made to return to the qualified insurance
company any contribution which is not a qualified
contribution (as defined in subsection (h)) for a taxable
year shall not be included in gross income if such
distribution is made prior to the filing of the tax return
for such taxable year.''.
(c) Definitions and Other Rules Relating to Policyholder
Disaster Protection Funds.--Section 832 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to insurance company taxable
income) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) Definitions and Other Rules Relating to Policyholder
Disaster Protection Funds.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Policyholder disaster protection fund.--The term
`policyholder disaster protection fund' (hereafter in this
subsection referred to as the `fund') means any custodial
account, trust, or any other arrangement or account--
``(A) which is established to hold assets that are set
aside solely for the payment of qualified losses, and
``(B) under the terms of which--
``(i) the assets in the fund are required to be invested in
a manner consistent with the investment requirements
applicable to the qualified insurance company under the laws
of its jurisdiction of domicile,
``(ii) the net income for the taxable year derived from the
assets in the fund is required to be distributed no less
frequently than annually,
``(iii) an excess balance drawdown amount is required to be
distributed to the qualified insurance company no later than
the close of the taxable year following the taxable year for
which such amount is determined,
``(iv) a catastrophe drawdown amount may be distributed to
the qualified insurance company if distributed prior to the
close of the taxable year following the year for which such
amount is determined,
``(v) a State required drawdown amount may be distributed,
and
``(vi) no distributions from the fund are required or
permitted other than the distributions described in clauses
(ii) through (v) and

[[Page 18450]]

the return to the qualified insurance company of
contributions that are not qualified contributions.
``(2) Qualified insurance company.--The term `qualified
insurance company' means any insurance company subject to tax
under section 831(a).
``(3) Qualified contribution.--The term `qualified
contribution' means a contribution to a fund for a taxable
year to the extent that the amount of such contribution, when
added to the previous contributions to the fund for such
taxable year, does not exceed the excess of--
``(A) the fund cap for the taxable year, over
``(B) the fund balance determined as of the close of the
preceding taxable year.
``(4) Excess balance drawdown amounts.--The term `excess
balance drawdown amount' means the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the fund balance as of the close of the taxable year,
over
``(B) the fund cap for the following taxable year.
``(5) Catastrophe drawdown amount.--
``(A) In general.--The term `catastrophe drawdown amount'
means an amount that does not exceed the lesser of the amount
determined under subparagraph (B) or (C).
``(B) Net losses from qualifying events.--The amount
determined under this subparagraph shall be equal to the
qualified losses for the taxable year determined without
regard to clause (ii) of paragraph (8)(A).
``(C) Gross losses in excess of threshold.--The amount
determined under this subparagraph shall be equal to the
excess (if any) of--
``(i) the qualified losses for the taxable year, over
``(ii) the lesser of--

``(I) the fund cap for the taxable year (determined without
regard to paragraph (9)(E)), or
``(II) 30 percent of the qualified insurance company's
surplus as regards policyholders as shown on the company's
annual statement for the calendar year preceding the taxable
year.

``(D) Special drawdown amount following a recent
catastrophe loss year.--If for any taxable year included in
the reference period the qualified losses exceed the amount
determined under subparagraph (C)(ii), the `catastrophe
drawdown amount' shall be an amount that does not exceed the
lesser of the amount determined under subparagraph (B) or the
amount determined under this subparagraph. The amount
determined under this subparagraph shall be an amount equal
to the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the qualified losses for the taxable year, over
``(ii) the lesser of--

``(I) \1/3\ of the fund cap for the taxable year
(determined without regard to paragraph (9)(E)), or
``(II) 10 percent of the qualified insurance company's
surplus as regards policyholders as shown on the company's
annual statement for the calendar year preceding the taxable
year.

``(E) Reference period.--For purposes of subparagraph (D),
the reference period shall be determined under the following
table:

``For a taxable year beginning in-- The reference period shall be--

2012 and later...................... The 3 preceding taxable years.
2011................................ The 2 preceding taxable years.
2010................................ The preceding taxable year.
2008 or before...................... No reference period applies.

``(6) State required drawdown amount.--The term `State
required drawdown amount' means any amount that the
department of insurance for the qualified insurance company's
jurisdiction of domicile requires to be distributed from the
fund, to the extent such amount is not otherwise described in
paragraph (4) or (5).
``(7) Fund balance.--The term `fund balance' means--
``(A) the sum of all qualified contributions to the fund,
``(B) less any net investment loss of the fund for any
taxable year or years, and
``(C) less the sum of all distributions under clauses (iii)
through (v) of paragraph (1)(B).
``(8) Qualified losses.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified losses' means, with
respect to a taxable year--
``(i) the amount of losses and loss adjustment expenses
incurred in the qualified lines of business specified in
paragraph (9), net of reinsurance, as reported in the
qualified insurance company's annual statement for the
taxable year, that are attributable to one or more qualifying
events (regardless of when such qualifying events occurred),
``(ii) the amount by which such losses and loss adjustment
expenses attributable to such qualifying events have been
reduced for reinsurance received and recoverable, plus
``(iii) any nonrecoverable assessments, surcharges, or
other liabilities that are borne by the qualified insurance
company and are attributable to such qualifying events.
``(B) Qualifying event.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the term `qualifying event' means any event that satisfies
clauses (i) and (ii).
``(i) Event.--An event satisfies this clause if the event
is 1 or more of the following:

``(I) Windstorm (hurricane, cyclone, or tornado).
``(II) Earthquake (including any fire following).
``(III) Winter catastrophe (snow, ice, or freezing).
``(IV) Fire.
``(V) Tsunami.
``(VI) Flood.
``(VII) Volcanic eruption.
``(VIII) Hail.

``(ii) Catastrophe designation.--An event satisfies this
clause if the event--

``(I) is designated a catastrophe by Property Claim
Services or its successor organization,
``(II) is declared by the President to be an emergency or
disaster, or
``(III) is declared to be an emergency or disaster in a
similar declaration by the chief executive official of a
State, possession, or territory of the United States, or the
District of Columbia.

``(9) Fund cap.--
``(A) In general.--The term `fund cap' for a taxable year
is the sum of the separate lines of business caps for each of
the qualified lines of business specified in the table
contained in subparagraph (C) (as modified under
subparagraphs (D) and (E)).
``(B) Separate lines of business cap.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the separate lines of business cap, with
respect to a qualified line of business specified in the
table contained in subparagraph (C), is the product of--
``(i) net written premiums reported in the annual statement
for the calendar year preceding the taxable year in such line
of business, multiplied by
``(ii) the fund cap multiplier applicable to such qualified
line of business.
``(C) Qualified lines of business and their respective fund
cap multipliers.--For purposes of this paragraph, the
qualified lines of business and fund cap multipliers
specified in this subparagraph are those specified in the
following table:

``Line of Business on Annual Fund Cap
Multiplier:
Statement Blank:
Fire..............................................................0.25
Allied............................................................1.25
Farmowners Multiple Peril.........................................0.25
Homeowners Multiple Peril.........................................0.75
Commercial Multi Peril (non-liability portion)....................0.50
Earthquake.......................................................13.00
Inland Marine.....................................................0.25.

``(D) Subsequent modifications of the annual statement
blank.--If, with respect to any taxable year beginning after
the effective date of this subsection, the annual statement
blank required to be filed is amended to replace, combine, or
otherwise modify any of the qualified lines of business
specified in subparagraph (C), then for such taxable year
subparagraph (C) shall be applied in a manner such that the
fund cap shall be the same amount as if such reporting
modification had not been made.
``(E) 20-year phase-in.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (C),
the fund cap for a taxable year shall be the amount
determined under subparagraph (C), as adjusted pursuant to
subparagraph (D) (if applicable), multiplied by the phase-in
percentage indicated in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase-in percentage to
be applied to fund cap
``Taxable year beginning in: computed under
subparagraphs (A) and
(B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009........................................... 5 percent
2010........................................... 10 percent
2011........................................... 15 percent
2012........................................... 20 percent
2013........................................... 25 percent
2014........................................... 30 percent
2015........................................... 35 percent
2016........................................... 40 percent
2017........................................... 45 percent

[[Page 18451]]

2018........................................... 50 percent
2019........................................... 55 percent
2020........................................... 60 percent
2021........................................... 65 percent
2022........................................... 70 percent
2023........................................... 75 percent
2024........................................... 80 percent
2025........................................... 85 percent
2026........................................... 90 percent
2027........................................... 95 percent
2028 and later................................. 100 percent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(10) Treatment of investment income and gain or loss.--
``(A) Contributions in kind.--A transfer of property other
than money to a fund shall be treated as a sale or exchange
of such property for an amount equal to its fair market value
as of the date of transfer, and appropriate adjustment shall
be made to the basis of such property. Section 267 shall
apply to any loss realized upon such a transfer.
``(B) Distributions in kind.--A transfer of property other
than money by a fund to the qualified insurance company shall
not be treated as a sale or exchange or other disposition of
such property. The basis of such property immediately after
such transfer shall be the greater of the basis of such
property immediately before such transfer or the fair market
value of such property on the date of such transfer.
``(C) Income with respect to fund assets.--Items of income
of the type described in paragraphs (1)(B), (1)(C), and (2)
of subsection (b) that are derived from the assets held in a
fund, as well as losses from the sale or other disposition of
such assets, shall be considered items of income, gain, or
loss of the qualified insurance company. Notwithstanding
paragraph (1)(F) of subsection (b), distributions of net
income to the qualified insurance company pursuant to
paragraph (1)(B)(ii) of this subsection shall not cause such
income to be taken into account a second time.
``(11) Net income; net investment loss.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the net income derived from the assets
in the fund for the taxable year shall be the items of income
and gain for the taxable year, less the items of loss for the
taxable year, derived from such assets, as described in
paragraph (10)(C). For purposes of paragraph (7), there is a
net investment loss for the taxable year to the extent that
the items of loss described in the preceding sentence exceed
the items of income and gain described in the preceding
sentence.
``(12) Annual statement.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `annual statement' shall have the meaning set forth
in section 846(f)(3).
``(13) Exclusion of premiums and losses on certain puerto
rican risks.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, premiums and losses with respect to risks covered
by a catastrophe reserve established under the laws or
regulations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico shall not be
taken into account under this subsection in determining the
amount of the fund cap or the amount of qualified losses.
``(14) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this subsection, including regulations--
``(A) which govern the application of this subsection to a
qualified insurance company having a taxable year other than
the calendar year or a taxable year less than 12 months,
``(B) which govern a fund maintained by a qualified
insurance company that ceases to be subject to this part, and
``(C) which govern the application of paragraph (9)(D).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

S. 1487

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Commission on Catastrophic
Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, which struck the
United States in 2005, caused over $200 billion in total
economic losses, including insured and uninsured losses.
(2) Although private sector insurance is currently
available to spread some catastrophe-related losses
throughout the Nation and internationally, most experts
believe there will be significant insurance and reinsurance
shortages, resulting in dramatic rate increases for consumers
and businesses, and the unavailability of catastrophe
insurance.
(3) The Federal Government has provided and will continue
to provide billions of dollars and resources to pay for
losses from catastrophes, including hurricanes, volcanic
eruptions, tsunamis, tornados, and other disasters, at huge
costs to American taxpayers.
(4) The Federal Government has a critical interest in
ensuring appropriate and fiscally responsible risk management
of catastrophes. Mortgages require reliable property
insurance, and the unavailability of reliable property
insurance would make most real estate transactions
impossible. In addition, the public health, safety, and
welfare demand that structures damaged or destroyed in a
catastrophe be reconstructed as soon as possible. Therefore,
the inability of the private sector insurance and reinsurance
markets to maintain sufficient capacity to enable Americans
to obtain property insurance coverage in the private sector
endangers the national economy and the public health, safety,
and welfare.
(5) Multiple proposals have been introduced in the United
States Congress over the past decade to address catastrophic
risk insurance, including the creation of a national
catastrophic reinsurance fund and the revision of the Federal
tax code to allow insurers to use tax-deferred catastrophe
funds, yet Congress has failed to act on any of these
proposals.
(6) To the extent the United States faces high risks from
catastrophe exposure, essential technical information on
financial structures and innovations in the catastrophe
insurance market is needed.
(7) The most efficient and effective approach to assessing
the catastrophe insurance problem in the public policy
context is to establish a bipartisan commission of experts to
study the management of catastrophic disaster risk, and to
require such commission to timely report its recommendations
to Congress so that Congress can quickly craft a solution to
protect the American people.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT.

There is established a bipartisan Commission on
Catastrophic Disaster Risk and Insurance (in this Act
referred to as the ``Commission'').

SEC. 4. MEMBERSHIP.

(a) Members.--The Commission shall be composed of the
following:
(1) The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency or a designee of the Administrator.
(2) The Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration or a designee of the
Administrator.
(3) 12 additional members or their designees of whom one
shall be--
(A) a representative of a consumer group;
(B) a representative of a primary insurance company;
(C) a representative of a reinsurance company;
(D) an independent insurance agent with experience in
writing property and casualty insurance policies;
(E) a State insurance regulator;
(F) a State emergency operations official;
(G) a scientist;
(H) a faculty member of an accredited university with
experience in risk management;
(I) a member of nationally recognized think tank with
experience in risk management;
(J) a homebuilder with experience in structural
engineering;
(K) a mortgage lender; and
(L) a nationally recognized expert in antitrust law.
(b) Manner of Appointment.--
(1) In general.--Any member of the Commission described
under subsection (a)(3) shall be appointed only upon
unanimous agreement of--
(A) the majority leader of the Senate;
(B) the minority leader of the Senate;
(C) the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(D) the minority leader of the House of Representatives.

[[Page 18452]]

(2) Consultation.--In making any appointment under
paragraph (1), each individual described in paragraph (1)
shall consult with the President.
(c) Eligibility Limitation.--Except as provided in
subsection (a), no member or officer of the Congress, or
other member or officer of the Executive Branch of the United
States Government or any State government may be appointed to
be a member of the Commission.
(d) Period of Appointment.--
(1) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall not
affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner as
the original appointment was made.
(e) Quorum.--
(1) Majority.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number may hold
hearings.
(2) Approval actions.--All recommendations and reports of
the Commission required by this Act shall be approved only by
a majority vote of a quorum of the Commission.
(f) Chairperson.--The majority leader of the Senate, the
minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and the minority leader of the House of
Representatives shall jointly select 1 member appointed
pursuant to subsection (a) to serve as the Chairperson of the
Commission.
(g) Meetings.--The Council shall meet at the call of its
Chairperson or a majority of its members at any time.

SEC. 5. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall--
(1) assess--
(A) the condition of the property and casualty insurance
and reinsurance markets in the aftermath of Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, and the 4 major hurricanes
that struck the United States in 2004; and
(B) the ongoing exposure of the United States to
earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, and floods; and
(2) recommend and report, as required under section 6, any
necessary legislative and regulatory changes that will--
(A) improve the domestic and international financial health
and competitiveness of such markets; and
(B) assure consumers of the--
(i) availability of adequate insurance coverage when an
insured event occurs; and
(ii) best possible range of insurance products at
competitive prices.

SEC. 6. REPORT.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the
appointment of Commission members under section 4, the
Commission shall submit to the President and the Congress a
final report containing a detailed statement of its findings,
together with any recommendations for legislation or
administrative action that the Commission considers
appropriate, in accordance with the requirements of section
5.
(b) Considerations.--In developing any recommendations
under subsection (a), the Commission shall consider--
(1) the catastrophic insurance and reinsurance market
structures and the relevant commercial practices in such
insurance industries in providing insurance protection to
different sectors of the American population;
(2) the constraints and opportunities in implementing a
catastrophic insurance system that can resolve key obstacles
currently impeding broader implementation of catastrophe risk
management and financing with insurance;
(3) methods to improve risk underwriting practices,
including--
(A) analysis of modalities of risk transfer for potential
financial losses;
(B) assessment of private securitization of insurances
risks;
(C) private-public partnerships to increase insurance
capacity in constrained markets; and
(D) the financial feasibility and sustainability of a
national catastrophe pool or regional catastrophe pools
designed to provide adequate insurance coverage and increased
underwriting capacity to insurers and reinsurers;
(4) approaches for implementing a public insurance scheme
for low-income communities, in order to promote risk
reduction and explicit insurance coverage in such
communities;
(5) methods to strengthen insurance regulatory requirements
and supervision of such requirements, including solvency for
catastrophic risk reserves;
(6) methods to promote public insurance policies linked to
programs for loss reduction in the uninsured sectors of the
American population;
(7) methods to strengthen the risk assessment and
enforcement of structural mitigation and vulnerability
reduction measures, such as zoning and building code
compliance;
(8) the appropriate role for the Federal Government in
stabilizing the property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance markets, with an analysis--
(A) of options such as--
(i) a reinsurance mechanism;
(ii) the modernization of Federal taxation policies; and
(iii) an ``insurance of last resort'' mechanism; and
(B) how to fund such options; and
(9) the merits of 3 principle legislative proposals
introduced in the 109th Congress, namely:
(A) The creation of a Federal catastrophe fund to act as a
backup to State catastrophe funds (S. 3117);
(B) Tax-deferred catastrophe accounts for insurers (S.
3115); and
(C) Tax-free catastrophe accounts for policyholders (S.
3116).

SEC. 7. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at the direction of the
Commission, any subcommittee or member of the Commission,
may, for the purpose of carrying out this Act--
(1) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries,
sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
receive such evidence, and administer such oaths or
affirmations as the Commission or such subcommittee or member
considers advisable; and
(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes,
and materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or
member considers advisable.
(b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall
bear the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and
shall be served by any person or class of persons designated
by the Chairperson for that purpose.
(2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may
issue an order requiring such person to appear at any
designated place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court
may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
(3) Confidentiality.--
(A) In general.--Information obtained under a subpoena
issued under subsection (a) which is deemed confidential, or
with reference to which a request for confidential treatment
is made by the person furnishing such information--
(i) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code; and
(ii) shall not be published or disclosed unless the
Commission determines that the withholding of such
information is contrary to the interest of the United States.
(B) Exception.--The requirements of subparagraph (A) shall
not apply to the publication or disclosure of any data
aggregated in a manner that ensures protection of the
identity of the person furnishing such data.
(c) Authority of Members or Agents of the Commission.--Any
member or agent of the Commission may, if authorized by the
Commission, take any action which the Commission is
authorized to take by this Act.
(d) Obtaining Official Data.--
(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding any provision of section
552a of title 5, United States Code, the Commission may
secure directly from any department or agency of the United
States any information necessary to enable the Commission to
carry out the purposes of this Act.
(2) Procedure.--Upon request of the Chairperson of the
Commission, the head of that department or agency shall
furnish the information requested to the Commission.
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Commission, the Administrator of General Services shall
provide to the Commission, on a reimbursable basis, any
administrative support services necessary for the Commission
to carry out its responsibilities under this Act.
(g) Gifts.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may accept, use, and
dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.
(2) Regulations.--The Commission shall adopt internal
regulations governing the receipt of gifts or donations of
services or property similar to those described in part 2601
of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

SEC. 8. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for GS-18 of the
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United States
Code, for each day (including travel time) during which such
member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the
Commission. All members of the Commission who are officers or
employees of the United States shall serve without
compensation in addition to that received for their services
as officers or employees of the United States.

[[Page 18453]]

(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Subcommittees.--The Commission may establish
subcommittees and appoint persons to such subcommittees as
the Commission considers appropriate.
(d) Staff.--Subject to such policies as the Commission may
prescribe, the Chairperson of the Commission may appoint and
fix the pay of such additional personnel as the Chairperson
considers appropriate to carry out the duties of the
Commission.
(e) Applicability of Certain Civil Service Laws.--
Subcommittee members and staff of the Commission may be--
(1) appointed without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service; and
(2) paid without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of that title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that an
individual so appointed may not receive pay in excess of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for GS-18 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of that title.
(f) Experts and Consultants.--In carrying out its
objectives, the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services of consultants and experts under
section 3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, at rates for
individuals which do not exceed the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for GS-18 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of that title.
(g) Detail of Government Employees.--Upon request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission to assist in
carrying out the duties of the Commission--
(1) on a reimbursable basis; and
(2) such detail shall be without interruption or loss of
civil service status or privilege.

SEC. 9. TERMINATION.

The Commission shall terminate 60 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report under section 6.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry
out the purposes of this Act.
______

By Mr. BURRIS:
S. 1488. A bill to extend temporarily the 18-month period of
continuation coverage under group health plans required under COBRA
continuation coverage provisions so as to provide for a total period of
continuation coverage of up to 24 months; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, today I rise to address a growing problem
resulting from America's high levels of unemployment and economic
downturn. Congress is working to design health reform that will provide
access to quality, affordable insurance coverage for every American,
but as unemployment numbers continue to rise, help may not come in time
to avoid coverage denials on the individual insurance market and
unbearable economic strain for those job seekers whose COBRA coverage
has expired.
The Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 codified
18 months of additional group rate coverage under employer sponsored
plans following a triggering event such as job loss. This law has been
instrumental in providing continuity of health coverage for families.
The measure requires companies with over 20 employees to provide access
to 18 months of continued coverage at the employee's expense, except in
cases of firing for gross employee misconduct. Beneficiaries cover the
additional administrative expense, and may be charged up to 103 percent
of their original premiums.
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act provided help with health
insurance for families who lost their jobs after September 1, 2008 and
through December of 2009. For those in this category, the federal
government provides nine months of subsidized premiums, with
beneficiaries covering 35 percent of premium costs. However, the
downturn started well before September of 2008.
For those that lost their job before September, and are still looking
for work, the situation is dire. Many are quickly facing the end of
their 18 month eligibility period for COBRA. They hear about health
reform but have no idea when it may come. Insurance exchanges to
guaranteeing eligibility and reasonable premiums on the individual
market could take years to set up. In the mean time, those who could
have afforded coverage under COBRA may instead have to resort to
emergency room care and bankruptcy.
The Emergency COBRA Expansion Act of 2009 will give job seekers the
opportunity to continue their COBRA coverage for up to an additional 6
months. The bill applies to all of those utilizing COBRA benefits as of
the date of bill passage, and would not extend anyone's coverage beyond
12 months from the date of bill enactment. A year from now, our country
will be on the road to economic recovery, but in the meantime we need
to help struggling families to stay insured and healthy.
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 1489. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to create parity
among small business contracting programs, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Senate Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise to introduce this bill
in order to correct disparities among the Small Business
Administration's small business contracting programs. Building on my
efforts to bring true parity to the program, this bill will create a
more equitable and flexible method for federal agencies to fairly
allocate federal procurement dollars to small business contractors
across the nation. Earlier this year, I filed an amendment, cosponsored
by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to create parity as part
of S. 454, the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.
Unfortunately, that amendment was not accepted.
For years it has been unclear to the acquisition community what, if
any, the true order of preference is for determining which small
business contracting program is at the top of the agency's priority
list. The SBA's regulations state that there is parity among the
programs, and this had been the general practice in effect until two
Government Accountability Office decisions were released on September
19, 2008 and May 4, 2009.
The decisions stated that the Historically Underutilized Business
Zone, HUBZone, program had preference over all other small business
contracting programs. While the interpretation benefits HUBZone
businesses, it comes at the expense of other vital small business
contracting programs. This targeted bill provides equity for the SBA's
small business contracting programs.
The bill provides Federal agencies with the necessary flexibility to
satisfy their government-wide statutory small business contracting
goals. This bill makes clear to purchasing agencies that contracting
officers may award contracts to HUBZone, Service Disabled Veterans,
8(a), or women-owned firms with equal deference to each program. It
would provide these agencies with the ability to achieve their goaling
requirements equally through an award to a HUBZone firm, a service-
disabled veteran-owned small business, and a small business
participating in the 8(a) business development program. Of course this
list will also include women-owned small businesses once the women's
procurement program is fully implemented by the SBA.
In addition, this bill brings the SBA's contracting programs closer
to true parity by giving HUBZones a subcontracting goal. HUBZones are
the only small business contracting program without a subcontracting
goal. In addition, the bill authorizes mentor protege programs modeled
after those used in the 8(a) program for HUBZones, service-disabled
veteran and women-owned firms.
The essence of true parity is where each program has an equal chance
of competing and being selected for an award. During these difficult
economic times, it is imperative that small business contractors
possess an equal opportunity to compete for Federal contracts on the
same playing field with each other.

[[Page 18454]]

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 218--MAKING MINORITY PARTY APPOINTMENTS FOR THE 111TH
CONGRESS

Mr. McCONNELL submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:

S. Res. 218

Resolved, That the following be the minority membership on
the following committees for the remainder of the 111th
Congress, or until their successors are appointed:
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE NUTRITION AND FORESTRY: Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thune, and Mr.
Cornyn.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Mr. Lugar, Mr. Corker, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Risch, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Wicker, and
Mr. Inhofe.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS:
Ms. Collins, Mr. Coburn, Mr. McCain, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Ensign, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Bennett.
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP: Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Bond, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Risch.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING: Mr. Martinez, Mr. Shelby, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Corker, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Graham,
and Mr. Chambliss.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 219--HONORING THE HOCKEY TEAM OF EAST SIDE HIGH
SCHOOL IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

Mr. MENENDEZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 219

Whereas adolescents who lack a structured, after-school
environment are at high risk of delinquency, poor academic
performance, and illicit behavior;
Whereas the lack of a structured after-school environment
is especially prevalent in inner-city communities such as
Newark, New Jersey;
Whereas athletic organizations provide a safe after-school
environment in which adolescents learn about commitment,
dedication, and teamwork;
Whereas East Side High School in Newark, New Jersey, formed
a hockey team;
Whereas members of the East Side High School hockey team
have shown resilience, dedication, and continuous
improvement;
Whereas the New Jersey Devils offered assistance to the
East Side High School hockey team, including access to the
New Jersey Devils practice hockey rink; and
Whereas the nonprofit organization, Hockey in Newark, has
joined with the New Jersey Devils and the National Hockey
League to collect and distribute donated hockey equipment and
uniforms valued at $85,000 to low-income children in Newark,
New Jersey: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) commends the dedication of the players and coaches of
the hockey team of East Side High School in Newark, New
Jersey;
(2) wishes the East Side High School hockey team many
successful seasons ahead; and
(3) commends the New Jersey Devils for engaging the local
community and providing low-income, at-risk children the
opportunity to play hockey.

____________________

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 33--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT
A COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE STAMP SHOULD BE ISSUED TO HONOR THE CREW OF THE
USS MASON DE-529 WHO FOUGHT AND SERVED DURING WORLD WAR II

Mr. BURRIS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs:

S. Con. Res. 33

Whereas the USS Mason DE-529 was the only United States
Navy destroyer with a predominantly black enlisted crew
during World War II;
Whereas the integration of the crew of the USS Mason DE-529
was the role model for racial integration on Navy vessels and
served as a beacon for desegregation in the Navy;
Whereas the integration of the crew signified the first
time that black citizens of the United States were trained to
serve in ranks other than cooks and stewards;
Whereas the USS Mason DE-529 served as a convoy escort in
the Atlantic and Mediterranean Theatres during World War II;
Whereas, in September 1944, the crew of the USS Mason DE-
529 helped save Convoy NY119, ushering the convoy to safety
despite a deadly storm in the Atlantic Ocean;
Whereas, in 1998, the Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton
made an official decision to name an Arleigh Burke Class
Destroyer the USS Mason DDG-87 in order to honor the USS
Mason DE-529;
Whereas, in 1994, President Clinton awarded the USS Mason
DE-529 a long-overdue commendation, presenting the award to
67 of the surviving crewmembers; and
Whereas commemorative postage stamps have been issued to
honor important vessels, aircrafts, and battles in the
history of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States Postal Service should issue a postage
stamp honoring the crew of the USS Mason DE-529 who fought
and served during World War II; and
(2) the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee should recommend
to the Postmaster General that such a stamp be issued.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 1647. Mr. LAUTENBERG submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1648. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1649. Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Coburn) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S.
1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1650. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Graham)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1651. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs.
Lincoln, and Mr. Burris) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1652. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1653. Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1654. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1655. Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Kyl)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1656. Mr. CONRAD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1657. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1658. Mr. SANDERS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1659. Mr. SANDERS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1660. Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Webb,
and Mr. Warner) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1661. Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Chambliss)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1662. Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Nelson, of
Nebraska) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 1663. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1664. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1665. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1666. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1667. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1668. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the

[[Page 18455]]

bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1669. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Bond, Ms. Landrieu,
Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Burris, and Mr. Schumer) submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed by her to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1670. Mr. MENENDEZ submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1671. Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Inhofe, and
Mr. Vitter) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 1672. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1673. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1674. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1675. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Murkowski)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1676. Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr.
Lieberman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 1677. Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr.
Lieberman) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
SA 1678. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1679. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1680. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bond,
Mr. Begich, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cochran,
Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Risch, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mrs. Shaheen) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1681. Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Tester, and Mr. Wyden) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1682. Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Tester, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr.
Dorgan) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 1683. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1684. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1685. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1686. Mr. SANDERS submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1687. Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Corker)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 1688. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 1689. Mrs. MURRAY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her to the bill S. 1390, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

______

On page 213, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 706. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON HEALTH CARE BENEFITS AND
COSTS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND THEIR
FAMILIES.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) Career members of the Armed Forces and their families
endure unique and extraordinary demands, and make
extraordinary sacrifices, over the course of 20-year to 30-
year careers in protecting freedom for all Americans.
(2) The nature and extent of these demands and sacrifices
are never so evident as in wartime, not only during the
current combat operations, but also during the wars of the
last 60 years when current retired members of the Armed
Forces were on continuous call to go in harm's way when and
as needed.
(3) A primary benefit of enduring the extraordinary
sacrifices inherent in a military career is a range of
retirement benefits, including lifetime health benefits, that
a grateful Nation provides for those who choose to
subordinate their personal life to the national interest for
so many years.
(4) Currently serving and retired members of the uniformed
services and their families and survivors deserve benefits
equal to their commitment and service to our Nation.
(5) Many employers are curtailing health benefits and
shifting costs to their employees, which may result in
retired members of the Armed Forces returning to the
Department of Defense, and its TRICARE program, for health
care benefits during retirement, and contribute to health
care cost growth.
(6) Defense health costs also expand as a result of
service-unique military readiness requirements, wartime
requirements, and other necessary requirements that represent
the ``cost of business'' for the Department of Defense.
(7) While the Department of Defense has made some efforts
to contain increases in the cost of the TRICARE program, too
many of those efforts have been devoted to shifting a larger
share of the costs of benefits under that program to retired
members of the Armed Forces who have earned health care
benefits in return for a career of military service.
(8) In some cases health care providers refuse to accept
TRICARE patients because that program pays less than other
public and private payors and imposes unique administrative
requirements.
(9) The Department of Defense records deposits to the
Department of Defense Military Retiree Health Care Fund as
discretionary costs to the Department in spite of legislation
enacted in 2006 that requires such deposits to be made
directly from the Treasury of the United States.
(10) As a result, annual payments for the future costs of
servicemember health care continue to compete with other
readiness needs of the Armed Forces.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Department of Defense and the Nation have an
obligation to provide health care benefits to retired members
of the Armed Forces that equals the quality of their selfless
service to our country;
(2) past proposals by the Department of Defense to impose
substantial fee increases on military beneficiaries have
failed to acknowledge properly the findings addressed in
subsection (a); and
(3) the Department of Defense has many additional options
to constrain the growth of health care spending in ways that
do not disadvantage retired members of the Armed Forces who
participate or seek to participate in the TRICARE program,
and should pursue any and all such options rather than
seeking large increases for enrollment fees, deductibles, and
copayments for such retirees, and their families or
survivors, who do participate in that program.
______

SA 1648. Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. PORT CHICAGO NAVAL MAGAZINE NATIONAL MEMORIAL.

(a) In General.--Section 203 of the Port Chicago National
Memorial Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 431 note; Public Law 102-562;
106 Stat. 4235) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (f);
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
administer the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial
as a unit of the National Park System in accordance with--
``(A) this Act; and
``(B) the laws generally applicable to units of the
National Park System, including--
``(i) the National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.); and
``(ii) the Act of August 21, 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461 et seq.).
``(2) Administered land.--The land described in subsection
(d)(2) shall be administered in accordance with this
subsection.

[[Page 18456]]

``(d) Transfer of Land.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall enter
into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of the
Interior providing for the transfer, without reimbursement,
of administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary of the
Interior of the land described in paragraph (2), if the
Secretary of Defense determines that the land is in excess of
military needs.
``(2) Description of land.--The land referred to in
paragraph (1) is the parcel of approximately 5 acres of land,
as depicted on the map entitled `Port Chicago Naval Magazine
National Memorial, Proposed Boundary', numbered 018/80,001,
and dated August 2005.
``(e) Agreement With City of Concord and East Bay Regional
Park District.--The Secretary of the Interior may enter into
an agreement with the City of Concord, California, and the
East Bay Regional Park District to establish and operate a
facility for visitor orientation and parking, administrative
offices, and curatorial storage for the Port Chicago Naval
Magazine National Memorial.''; and
(3) in subsection (f), (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``Secretary of the Navy to provide public access
to the Memorial'' and inserting ``Secretary of Defense to
provide the maximum practicable public access to the Memorial
without interfering with military needs''.
(b) Sense of Congress on Remediation and Repair of Port
Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial.--
(1) Remediation.--It is the sense of Congress that, to
facilitate the transfer of administrative jurisdiction
described in subsection (d) of section 203 of the Port
Chicago National Memorial Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 431 note;
Public Law 102-562; 106 Stat. 4235)(as added by subsection
(a)), the Secretary of Defense should promptly remediate any
remaining environmental contamination relating to the land.
(2) Repair.--It is the sense of Congress that, in order to
preserve the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial
for future generations, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of the Interior should work together to--
(A) repair storm damage to the Port Chicago Naval Magazine
National Memorial; and
(B) develop a process by which future repairs and necessary
modifications to the Memorial can be achieved in as timely
and cost-effective a manner as possible.
(c) Effect.--Nothing in this section or the amendments made
by this section affects or limits the application of, or
obligation to comply with, any environmental law, including
section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)).
______

SA 1649. Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Coburn) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 832 and insert the following:

SEC. 832. SMALL ARMS PRODUCTION INDUSTRIAL BASE.

Section 2473 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following
new subsection (c):
``(c) Small arms Production Industrial Base.--In this
section, the term `small arms production industrial base'
means the persons and organizations that are engaged in the
production or maintenance of small arms within the United
States.''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(6) Pistols.''.
______

SA 1650. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Mr. Graham) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 394, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1032. TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION OF ALIEN UNPRIVILEGED
BELLIGERENTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW OF WAR.

(a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 47A of title 10,
United States Code, as amended by section 1031(a), is further
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 948e. Trial by military commission of alien
unprivileged belligerents for violations of the law of war

``(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the preferred forum for the trial of alien unprivileged enemy
belligerents subject to this chapter for violations of the
law of war and other offenses made punishable by this chapter
is trial by military commission under this chapter.
``(b) Reporting Requirement.--For any alien unprivileged
enemy belligerent subject to this chapter whom the United
States Government decides to try in Federal district court
rather than by military commission under this chapter, the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General shall report to
Congress, not later than 30 days after such decision is made,
on--
``(1) the criteria used to decide to try such individual in
Federal district court rather than by military commission;
``(2) an estimate of the total costs to the United States
Government, including costs borne by the judicial branch,
attributable to trying such individual in Federal district
court; and
``(3) any other information that the Secretary of Defense
and the Attorney General consider appropriate.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections of the
beginning of such subchapter, as amended by section 1031(a),
is further amended by adding after the item relating to
section 948d the following new item:

``948e. Trial by military commission of alien unprivileged
belligerents for violations of the law of war.''.
______

SA 1651. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Lincoln, and
Mr. Burris) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to
the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 652. CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY OF RESERVE COMPONENT
MEMBERS DURING PHYSICAL EVALUATION BOARD
PROCESS.

Section 1218 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(d)(1) The Secretary of a military department shall give
a member of a reserve component under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary who is being evaluated by a physical evaluation
board for separation or retirement for disability, incurred
in the performance of military duties under this chapter or
for placement on the temporary disability retired list or
inactive status list under this chapter the option to remain
on active duty during the physical evaluation board process
until such time as the member--
``(A) is cleared by the board for continuation of active
duty; or
``(B) is separated, retired, or placed on the temporary
disability retired list or inactive status list.
``(2) A member may change the election under paragraph (1)
at any point during the physical evaluation board process and
be released from active duty.
``(3) The requirements in paragraph (1) shall expire on the
date that is five years after the date of the enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.
``(e) A member contemplating the exercise of an option
under subsection (d) may exercise such option only after
being afforded an opportunity to consult with a member of the
applicable judge advocate general's corps.''.

SEC. 653. ENCOURAGEMENT OF USE OF LOCAL RESIDENCES FOR
CERTAIN RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS.

Section 1222 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Assignment to Community Based Warrior Transition
Units for Certain Reserve Component Members.--(1)(A) A member
of a reserve component described by subparagraph (B) may be
assigned to the community based warrior transition unit
located nearest to the member's permanent place of residence
if residing at that location is--
``(i) medically feasible, as determined by a licensed
military health care provider; and
``(ii) consistent with the needs of the armed forces.
``(B) A member of a reserve component described by this
subparagraph is any member remaining on active duty under
section 1218(d) of this title during the period the member is
on active duty under such subsection.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
terminating, altering, or otherwise affecting the authority
of the commander of a member described in paragraph (1)(B) to
order the member to perform duties consistent with the
member's fitness for duty.
``(3) The Secretary concerned shall pay any reasonable
expenses of transportation, lodging, and meals incurred by a
member residing at the member's permanent place of residence
under this subsection in connection with travel from the
member's permanent place of residence to a medical facility
during the period in which the member is covered by this
subsection.''.

[[Page 18457]]

SEC. 654. ASSISTANCE WITH TRANSITIONAL BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 61 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1218 the
following new section:

``Sec. 1218a. Discharge or release from active duty:
transition assistance

``The Secretary of a military department shall provide to a
member of a reserve component under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary who is injured while on active duty in the armed
forces the following before such member is demobilized or
separated from the armed forces:
``(1) Information on the availability of care and
administrative processing through community based warrior
transition units.
``(2) The location of the community based warrior
transition unit located nearest to the member's permanent
place of residence.
``(3) An opportunity to consult with a member of the
applicable judge advocate general's corps regarding the
member's eligibility for compensation, disability, or other
transitional benefits.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 61 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1218 the following new
item:

``1218a. Discharge or release from active duty: transition
assistance.''.
______

SA 1652. Mr. INHOFE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 429, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION AND
TRAINING PROGRAM.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Building foreign partner capacity is a fundamental
cornerstone of the security strategy of the United States.
(2) Significant progress has been made in this area over
the past several years, but the United States Government must
continue to increase its efforts, including improving
reliability of funding and late notifications of school
availability for the International Military Education and
Training (IMET) program.
(b) Report Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
coordination with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
Representatives a report on the effectiveness and efficiency
of the IMET program.
(2) Content.--The report required under paragraph (1) shall
include the following information broken out by year over the
past 10 years:
(A) Number of courses in the IMET program available,
accomplished, and cancelled and an explanation therefor.
(B) Number of students authorized and actual attendance for
each course and an explanation for the difference.
(C) The total budget and actual budget executed for each
course in the IMET program and an explanation for the
difference.
(D) The process for selecting students for the IMET
program, including a timeline.
(E) The process for distributing funding for each school,
including a timeline.
(F) Lessons learned to ensure student attendance and course
execution is maximized.
______

SA 1653. Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. Inhofe) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1222. REPORT ON TAIWAN'S AIR FORCE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) According to the Department of Defense's (DoD) 2009
Annual Report on Military Power of the People's Republic of
China, the military balance in the Taiwan Strait has been
shifting in China's favor since 2000, marked by the sustained
deployment of advanced military equipment to the Chinese
military regions opposite Taiwan.
(2) Although the DoD's 2002 Report concluded that Taiwan
``has enjoyed dominance of the airspace over the Taiwan
Strait for many years,'' the DoD's 2009 Report states this
conclusion no longer holds true.
(3) China has based 490 combat aircraft (330 fighters and
160 bombers) within unrefueled operational range of Taiwan,
and has the airfield capacity to expand that number by
hundreds. In contrast, Taiwan has 390 combat aircraft (all of
which are fighters).
(4) Also according to the DoD's 2009 Report, China has
continued its build-up of conventional ballistic missiles
since 2000, ``building a nascent capacity for conventional
short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) strikes against Taiwan
into what has become one of China's primary instruments of
coercion.'' At this time, China has expanded its SRBM force
opposite Taiwan to seven brigades with a total of 1,050
through 1,150 missiles, and is augmenting these forces with
conventional medium-range ballistic missiles systems and at
least 2 land attack cruise missile variants capable of ground
or air launch. Advanced fighters and bombers, combined with
enhanced training for nighttime and overwater flights,
provide China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) with
additional capabilities for regional strike or maritime
interdiction operations.
(5) Furthermore, the Report maintains, ``the security
situation in the Taiwan Strait is largely a function of
dynamic interactions among Mainland China, Taiwan, and the
United States. The PLA has developed and deployed military
capability to coerce Taiwan or attempt an invasion if
necessary. PLA improvements pose new challenges to Taiwan's
security, which has historically been based upon the PLA's
inability to project power across the 100 nautical-mile
Taiwan Strait, natural geographic advantages of island
defense, Taiwan's armed forces' technological superiority,
and the possibility of U.S. intervention''.
(6) The Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 requires that, in
furtherance of the principle of maintaining peace and
stability in the Western Pacific region, the United States
shall make available to Taiwan such defense articles and
defense services in such quantity ``as may be necessary to
enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense
capability,'' allowing that ``the President and the Congress
shall determine the nature and quantity of such defense
articles and services based solely upon their judgment of the
needs of Taiwan . . .''.
(b) Report to Congress on Taiwan's Current Air Force and
Future Self-Defense Requirements.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall submit to Congress a report, in both classified and
unclassified form, containing the following:
(1) A thorough and complete assessment of the current state
of Taiwan's Air Force, including--
(A) the number and type of aircraft;
(B) the age of aircraft; and
(C) the capability of those aircraft.
(2) An assessment of the effectiveness of the aircraft in
the face of a full-scale concerted missile and air campaign
by China, in which China uses its most modern surface-to-air
missiles currently deployed along its seacoast.
(3) An analysis of the specific weapons systems and
platforms that Taiwan would need to provide for it's self-
defense and maintain control of its own air space.
(4) Options for the United States to assist Taiwan in
achieving those capabilities.
(5) A 5-year plan for fulfilling the obligations of the
United States under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide for
Taiwan's self-defense and aid Taiwan in maintaining control
of its own air space.
______

SA 1654. Mr. CORNYN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. POSTHUMOUS BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING SPOUSE.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Military Widow and Surviving Spouse Protection Act''.
(b) Amendment.--Section 1703(a)(1) of title XVII of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (
Public Law 108-136) is amended by inserting ``or the citizen
died while serving honorably in an active duty status in the
military, air, or naval forces of the United States and such
death occurred through no fault of the citizen,'' after
``aggravated by combat,''.
______

SA 1655. Mr. CORNYN (for himself, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr. Kyl) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

[[Page 18458]]

SEC. 1232. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING COMMITMENT TO GLOBAL
WAR ON TERROR.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The surge strategy executed in Iraq by General David H.
Petraeus and General Raymond T. Odierno in 2007 and 2008 was
highly successful in reducing levels of violence and enabling
the Iraqi government and security forces to gain credibility
and capability.
(2) President Obama articulated his general strategy for
Iraq during a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, on
February 27, 2009, stating that a central goal is to ensure
that Iraq ``is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant''. During
the speech, the President outlined the President's objective
to ``transition to full Iraqi responsibility'' through the
``responsible removal of our combat brigades from Iraq''.
(3) As part of the President's Iraq strategy, the President
also indicated the President's commitment to ensuring that
``we preserve the gains we've made and protect our troops''.
Consequently, the United States and our allies have a
continued interest in maintaining these hard-fought security
gains, especially during the upcoming Iraqi provincial
elections, while simultaneously protecting the United States
military and civilian members still in Iraq.
(4) A key component of the President's plan for Iraq is to
retain a transitional force there to carry out several
distinct functions, including training, equipping, and
advising the Iraqi Security Forces, conducting targeted
counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilian and
military forces within Iraq. In accordance with this policy,
United States forces have largely withdrawn from Iraqi
cities, but the President expects that the transitional
force, to number between 35,000 and 50,000 United States
military servicemembers, will remain in Iraq for the
foreseeable future.
(5) President Obama articulated his emerging plan for
Afghanistan in a speech on March 27, 2009, stating that the
United States goal there is to ``disrupt, dismantle, and
defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent
their return to either country in the future''. To this end,
the current surge strategy in Afghanistan, spearheaded by
General Petraeus and General Stanley A. McChrystal, the new
commander of the NATO International Security Assistance
Force, is critical to providing security for the Afghan
populace, bolstering the Afghan security forces, and waging a
successful campaign against Islamic extremists of al Qaeda,
the Taliban, and affiliated groups.
(6) President Obama's laudable goals of disrupting
terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan and developing
increasingly self-reliant Afghan security forces necessitated
the surge of 17,000 additional United States troops to
increase the overall size of the NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force. These more robust forces, focusing
in the south and east portions of the country, will have an
enhanced ability to protect the Afghan population against a
resurgence of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their allies, as
well as to provide greater ability for the Afghan government
to establish effective government control.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that--
(1) the global war on terror represents a critical effort
to protect the American people and ensure that future
generations may continue to enjoy the precious freedoms we
have today;
(2) the United States must remain committed to succeeding
in the global war on terror and fighting the forces of
Islamic extremism in Iraq and Afghanistan, including al
Qaeda, the Taliban, and other groups, that are intent on the
murder of innocent Americans, the destruction of the American
way of life, and the global proliferation of radical and
violent ideology;
(3) our military servicemembers and civilian United States
personnel serving in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other fronts in the global war on terror must be given any
and all resources they need to accomplish the missions that
have been asked of them, including the deployment of
additional forces, should United States commanders on the
ground deem that necessary;
(4) in Iraq, the hard-earned security gains won by our
servicemembers must be preserved, and the long-term United
States strategy there must continue to reflect that essential
goal;
(5) the President's plan for Iraq is fundamentally sound
and represents a responsible and carefully considered
strategy that will help Iraq maintain sovereignty, stability,
and self-reliance, achievements that were made possible
largely through the extraordinary efforts and tremendous
sacrifices of United States servicemembers and civilian
personnel in Iraq;
(6) the President's plan for Afghanistan is clearly
intended to improve the overall security situation there and
enable the eventual drawdown and withdrawal of United States
forces, and the President's near-term strategy to surge
forces and provide improved security to the Afghan people by
locating United States military personnel among the
population, in conjunction with the growing Afghan National
Army and Afghan National Police, which the United States
supports and trains, will increase the security of the Afghan
population; and
(7) although gains in the global war on terror will not
come without a cost, the American people and the Iraqi and
Afghan people share a common enemy and a common goal to do
whatever is necessary to defeat terrorists and those who
support them, no matter the cost or duration.
______

SA 1656. Mr. CONRAD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 652. REPORT ON RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF MEMBERS OF
THE AIR FORCE IN NUCLEAR CAREER FIELDS.

(a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air
Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a
report on the efforts of the Air Force to attract and retain
qualified individuals for service as members of the Air Force
involved in the operation, maintenance, handling, and
security of nuclear weapons.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) A description of current reenlistment rates, set forth
by Air Force Specialty Code, of members of the Air Force
serving in positions involving the operation, maintenance,
handling, and security of nuclear weapons.
(2) A description of the current personnel fill rate for
Air Force units involved in the operation, maintenance,
handling, and security of nuclear weapons.
(3) An description of the steps the Air Force has taken,
including the use of retention bonuses or assignment
incentive pay, to improve recruiting and retention of
officers and enlisted personnel by the Air Force for the
positions described in paragraph (1).
(4) An assessment of the feasibility, advisability,
utility, and cost effectiveness of establishing additional
bonuses or incentive pay as a way to enhance the recruitment
and retention by the Air Force of skilled personnel in the
positions described in paragraph (1).
(5) An assessment of whether assignment incentive pay
should be provided for members of the Air Force covered by
the Personnel Reliability Program.
(6) An assessment of the long-term community management
plan for recruitment and retention by the Air Force of
skilled personnel in the positions described in paragraph
(1).
(7) Such other matters as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
______

SA 1657. Mr. SESSIONS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. NO MIRANDA WARNINGS FOR AL QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``foreign national'' means an individual who
is not a citizen or national of the United States; and
(2) the term ``prisoner of war''--
(A) has the same meaning that term has under the law of
war; and
(B) includes a privileged belligerent and an unprivileged
enemy belligerent, as those terms are defined in section 948a
of title 10, United States Code, as amended by section 1031
of this Act.
(b) No Miranda Warnings.--Absent an unappealable court
order requiring the reading of such statements, no agency or
department of the United States shall read to a foreign
national who is captured or detained as a prisoner of war by
the United States the statement required by Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or otherwise inform such a
prisoner of any rights that the prisoner may or may not have
under the Constitution of the United States or under any
Federal statute, regulation, or treaty. No Federal statute,
regulation, or treaty shall be construed to require that a
foreign national who is captured or detained as a prisoner of
war by the United States be informed of any rights that the
prisoner may or may not have. No statement that is made by a
foreign national who is captured or detained as a prisoner of
war by the United States may be excluded from any proceeding
on the basis that the prisoner was not informed of a right
that the prisoner may or may not have.
______

SA 1658. Mr. SANDERS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for

[[Page 18459]]

military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following:

SEC. 557. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE
FOR DEPLOYED MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS
OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the
United States shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representative a
report on financial assistance for child care provided by the
Department of Defense, including through the Operation:
Military Child Care and Military Child Care in Your
Neighborhood programs, to members of the reserve components
of the Armed Forces who are deployed in connection with a
contingency operation.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include an assessment of the following:
(1) The types of financial assistance for child care made
available by the Department of Defense to members of the
reserve components of the Armed Forces who are deployed in
connection with a contingency operation.
(2) The extent to which such members have taken advantage
of such assistance since such assistance was first made
available.
(3) The formulas used for calculating the amount of such
assistance provided to such members.
(4) The funding allocated to such assistance.
(5) The remaining costs of child care to families of such
members that are not covered by the Department of Defense.
(6) Any barriers to access to such assistance faced by such
members and the families of such members.
(7) The different criteria used by different States with
respect to the regulation of child care services and the
potential impact differences in such criteria may have on the
access of such members to such assistance.
(8) The different standards and criteria used by different
programs of the Department of Defense for providing such
assistance with respect to child care providers and the
potential impact differences in such standards and criteria
may have on the access of such members to such assistance.
(9) Any other matters the Comptroller General determines
relevant to the improvement of financial assistance for child
care made available by the Department of Defense to members
of the reserve components of the Armed Forces who are
deployed in connection with a contingency operation.
______

SA 1659. Mr. SANDERS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle F of title V, add the following:

SEC. 557. INCREASE IN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR CHILD CARE FOR
CHILDREN OF DEPLOYED MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE
COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations to increase financial assistance
provided under Operation: Military Child Care to cover not
less than 75 percent of the costs of child care provided
pursuant to Operation: Military Child Care.
(b) Operation: Military Child Care Defined.--In this
section, the term ``Operation: Military Child Care'' refers
to the program of the Department of Defense to provide
financial assistance for child care to members of the reserve
components of the Armed Forces who are deployed in connection
with a contingency operation.
______

SA 1660. Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Webb, and Mr.
Warner) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO COMPACT AMENDMENTS.

(a) Consent.--Consent of Congress is given to the
amendments of the State of Maryland, the amendments of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the amendments of the District
of Columbia to sections 5, 9 and 18 of title III of the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact.
(b) Amendments.--The amendments referred to in subsection
(a) are substantially as follows:
(1) Section 5 is amended to read as follows:
``(a) The Authority shall be governed by a Board of eight
Directors consisting of two Directors for each Signatory and
two for the federal government (one of whom shall be a
regular passenger and customer of the bus or rail service of
the Authority). For Virginia, the Directors shall be
appointed by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission;
for the District of Columbia, by the Council of the District
of Columbia; for Maryland, by the Washington Suburban Transit
Commission; and for the Federal Government, by the
Administrator of General Services. For Virginia and Maryland,
the Directors shall be appointed from among the members of
the appointing body, except as otherwise provided herein, and
shall serve for a term coincident with their term on the
appointing body. A Director for a Signatory may be removed or
suspended from office only as provided by the law of the
Signatory from which he was appointed. The nonfederal
appointing authorities shall also appoint an alternate for
each Director. In addition, the Administrator of General
Services shall also appoint two nonvoting members who shall
serve as the alternates for the federal Directors. An
alternate Director may act only in the absence of the
Director for whom he has been appointed an alternate, except
that, in the case of the District of Columbia where only one
Director and his alternate are present, such alternate may
act on behalf of the absent Director. Each alternate,
including the federal nonvoting Directors, shall serve at the
pleasure of the appointing authority. In the event of a
vacancy in the Office of Director or alternate, it shall be
filled in the same manner as an original appointment.
``(b) Before entering upon the duties of his office each
Director and alternate Director shall take and subscribe to
the following oath (or affirmation) of office or any such
other oath or affirmation, if any, as the constitution or
laws of the Government he represents shall provide: `I, ,
hereby solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution and laws of the state or political jurisdiction
from which I was appointed as a director (alternate director)
of the Board of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority and will faithfully discharge the duties of the
office upon which I am about to enter.'''.
(2) Subsection (a) of section 9 is amended to read as
follows:
``(a) The officers of the Authority, none of whom shall be
members of the Board, shall consist of a general manager, a
secretary, a treasurer, a comptroller, an inspector general,
and a general counsel and such other officers as the Board
may provide. Except for the office of general manager,
inspector general, and comptroller, the Board may consolidate
any of such other offices in one person. All such officers
shall be appointed and may be removed by the Board, shall
serve at the pleasure of the Board and shall perform such
duties and functions as the Board shall specify. The Board
shall fix and determine the compensation to be paid to all
officers and, except for the general manager who shall be a
full-time employee, all other officers may be hired on a
full-time or part-time basis and may be compensated on a
salary or fee basis, as the Board may determine. All
employees and such officers as the Board may designate shall
be appointed and removed by the general manager under such
rules of procedure and standards as the Board may
determine.''.
(3) Section 9 is further amended by inserting new
subsection (d) to read as follows (and by renumbering all
subsequent paragraphs of section 9):
``(d) The inspector general shall report to the Board and
head the Office of the Inspector General, an independent and
objective unit of the Authority that conducts and supervises
audits, program evaluations, and investigations relating to
Authority activities; promotes economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in Authority activities; detects and prevents
fraud and abuse in Authority activities; and keeps the Board
fully and currently informed about deficiencies in Authority
activities as well as the necessity for and progress of
corrective action.''.
(4) Section 18 is amended by adding a new section 18(d) to
read as follows:
``(d)(1) All payments made by the local Signatory
governments for the Authority for the purpose of matching
federal funds appropriated in any given year as authorized
under title VI, section 601, Public Law 110-432 regarding
funding of capital and preventative maintenance projects of 1
the Authority shall be made from amounts derived from
dedicated funding sources.
``(2) For the purposes of this paragraph (d), a `dedicated
funding source' means any source of funding that is earmarked
or required under State or local law to be used to match
Federal appropriations authorized under title VI, section
601, Public Law 110-432 for payments to the Authority.''.

[[Page 18460]]

(c) Right to Alter, Amend, or Repeal.--The right to alter,
amend, or repeal this section is expressly reserved. The
consent granted by this section shall not be construed as
impairing or in any manner affecting any right or
jurisdiction of the United States in and over the region that
forms the subject of the compact.
(d) Construction and Severability.--It is intended that the
provisions of this compact shall be reasonably and liberally
construed to effectuate the purposes thereof. If any part or
application of this compact, or legislation enabling the
compact, is held invalid, the remainder of the compact or its
application to other situations or persons shall not be
affected.
(e) Inconsistency of Language.--The validity of this
compact shall not be affected by any insubstantial
differences in its form or language as adopted by the State
of Maryland, Commonwealth of Virginia and District of
Columbia.
(f) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
______

SA 1661. Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Chambliss) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for the
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 652. INCLUSION OF SERVICE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, IN
DETERMINATION OF REDUCED ELIGIBILITY AGE FOR
RECEIPT OF NON-REGULAR SERVICE RETIRED PAY.

Section 12731(f)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``the date of the enactment of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008'' and
inserting ``September 11, 2001''; and
(2) by striking ``in any fiscal year after such date'' and
inserting ``in any fiscal year after fiscal year 2001''.
______

SA 1662. Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for the defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

Strike section 617 and insert the following:

SEC. 617. SPECIAL COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED
SERVICES WITH SERIOUS INJURIES OR ILLNESSES
REQUIRING ASSISTANCE IN EVERYDAY LIVING.

(a) In General.--Chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed
services with serious injuries or illnesses requiring
assistance in everyday living

``(a) Monthly Compensation.--The Secretary concerned may
pay to any member of the uniformed services described in
subsection (b) monthly special compensation in an amount
determined under subsection (c).
``(b) Covered Members.--A member eligible for monthly
special compensation authorized by subsection (a) is a member
who--
``(1) has been certified by a licensed physician to be in
need of assistance from another person to perform the
personal functions required in everyday living;
``(2) has a serious injury, disorder, or disease of either
a temporary or permanent nature that--
``(A) is incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; and
``(B) compromises the member's ability to carry out one or
more activities of daily living or requires the member to be
constantly supervised to avoid physical harm to the member or
to others; and
``(3) meets such other criteria, if any, as the Secretary
of Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security, with
respect to the Coast Guard) prescribes for purposes of this
section.
``(c) Amount.--(1) The amount of monthly special
compensation payable to a member under subsection (a) shall
be determined under criteria prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense (or the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect
to the Coast Guard), but may not exceed the amount of aid and
attendance allowance authorized by section 1114(r)(2) of
title 38 for veterans in need of aid and attendance.
``(2) In determining the amount of monthly special
compensation, the Secretary concerned shall consider the
following:
``(A) The extent to which home health care and related
services are being provided by the Government.
``(B) The extent to which aid and attendance services are
being provided by family and friends who may be compensated
with funds provided through the monthly special compensation.
``(d) Payment Until Medical Retirement.--Monthly special
compensation is payable under this section to a member
described in subsection (b) for any month that begins before
the date on which the member is medically retired.
``(e) Construction With Other Pay and Allowances.--Monthly
special compensation payable to a member under this section
is in addition to any other pay and allowances payable to the
member by law.
``(f) Benefit Information.--The Secretary of Defense, in
collaboration with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, shall
ensure that members of the uniformed services who may be
eligible for compensation under this section are made aware
of the availability of such compensation by including
information about such compensation in written and online
materials for such members and their families.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense (or the
Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast
Guard) shall prescribe regulations to carry out this
section.''.
(b) Report to Congress.--
(1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense (and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to the Coast
Guard) shall submit to Congress a report on the provision of
compensation under section 439 of title 37, United States
Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section.
(2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) An estimate of the number of members of the uniformed
services eligible for compensation under such section 439.
(B) The number of members of the uniformed services
receiving compensation under such section.
(C) The average amount of compensation provided to members
of the uniformed services receiving such compensation.
(D) The average amount of time required for a member of the
uniformed services to receive such compensation after the
member becomes eligible for the compensation.
(E) A summary of the types of injuries, disorders, and
diseases of members of the uniformed services receiving such
compensation that made such members eligible for such
compensation.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 7 of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:

``439. Special compensation: members of the uniformed services with
serious injuries or illnesses requiring assistance in
everyday living.''.
______

SA 1663. Mr. DODD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 619. MONTHLY SPECIAL PAY FOR MEMBERS RETAINED IN THE
ARMED FORCES UNDER STOP-LOSS AUTHORITIES FOR
PRE-DEPLOYMENT AND RE-INTEGRATION DUTY.

(a) Monthly Special Pay Required.--The Secretary concerned
shall pay to each member of the Armed Forces described in
subsection (b) monthly special pay in the amount specified in
subsection (c) for each month or portion of a month of pre-
deployment and re-integration duty performed by such member
on or after September 11, 2001, while described by subsection
(b), regardless of whether or not such duty was performed by
such member on active duty in the Armed Forces.
(b) Covered Members.--A member of the Armed Forces
described in this subsection is any member of the Armed
Forces whose enlistment or period of obligated service is
extended, or whose eligibility for retirement is suspended,
pursuant to section 123 or 12305 of title 10, United States
Code, or any other provision of law authorizing the President
to extend an enlistment or period of obligated service, or
suspend an eligibility for retirement, of a member of the
uniformed services in time of war or of national emergency
declared by Congress or the President (commonly referred to
as a ``stop-loss authority'').
(c) Amount.--The amount of monthly special pay payable
under subsection (a) for a month or portion of a month is
$500.
(d) Construction With Other Monthly Special Pay.--Monthly
special pay may not be paid under both this section and
section

[[Page 18461]]

8116 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2009
(division C of Public Law 110-329; 122 Stat. 3646) for any
month or portion of a month.
______

SA 1664. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

On page 214, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
(3) Assessments of members discharged or released upon
return from deployment.--In the case of a member of the Armed
Forces who is discharged or released from the Armed Forces
upon the member's return from deployment, the Secretary of
Defense shall make available the opportunity for such member
to participate in the mental health assessments required
under subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) together with the
unit with which the member was previously deployed, without
regard to the terms of such discharge or release.
______

SA 1665. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

At the appropriate place in title VII, insert the
following:

SEC. __. FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH CARE FOR MEMBERS OF THE
NATIONAL GUARD.

(a) Availability of Defense Health Program Funds.--Subject
to the provisions of appropriations Acts, amounts available
for Defense Health Program shall be available for programs
described in subsection (b) for members of the National Guard
not on active duty in the Armed Forces who incurred a
psychological or mental illness or injury on active duty in
the Armed Forces as demonstrated by existing medical records
or, in the absence of such records, by the opinion of a
licensed medical provider in the State where the member
resides.
(b) Covered Programs.--The programs described in this
subsection are programs as follows:
(1) Programs to assist members of the National Guard
described in subsection (a) in case management in the receipt
of non-clinical care for an illness or injury described in
that subsection.
(2) Programs to advise members of the National Guard
described in subsection (a) on the receipt of care and
treatment for an illness or injury described in that
subsection under the TRICARE program.
(3) Programs of psychological health treatment for members
of the National Guard described in subsection (a) for an
illness or injury described in that subsection.
(4) Programs supporting the efforts of the military
departments to update and maintain military health electronic
records systems.
(5) Such other treatment programs as may assist a member of
the National Guard described in subsection (a) for an illness
or injury described in that subsection, as determined by the
State Surgeon General of the National Guard of the State in
which the member reside, the Director of Psychological Health
of the State in which the member resides, the mental health
or equivalent agency of the State in which the member
resides, or the Director of the Psychological Health Program
of the National Guard Bureau.
(c) Budgeting.--The Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs shall coordinate with the National Guard
Bureau and other personnel and logistical elements of the
National Guard in determining the budget requirements of the
National Guard for the programs described in subsection (b).
______

SA 1666. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

On page 218, after line 21, add the following:
(h) Post-Deployment Health Assessments of Guard and Reserve
Members.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary concerned shall administer a
Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA) to each member of a
reserve component of the armed forces returning to the
member's home station or county of residence from deployment
in connection with a contingency operation within the
following timeframes:
(A) In the case of a member of the Individual Ready
Reserve, the assessment shall be administered by not later
than the member's release from active duty following such
deployment or 10 days after the member's return to such
station or county, whichever occurs earlier.
(B) In the case of any other member of a reserve component
of the armed forces returning from deployment, by not later
than the member's release from active duty following such
deployment.
(2) Performance by trained practitioners.--
(A) In general.--The Post-Deployment Health Assessment
required under this subsection shall be performed by a
practitioner trained and certified as qualified to
participate in the performance of Post-Deployment Health
Assessments or Post-Deployment Health Reassessments.
(B) Report on availability of trained personnel.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on the availability of personnel
described under subparagraph (A) to perform assessments
pursuant to this subsection at the home stations or counties
of residence of members of the reserve components of the
Armed Forces. If such personnel are not available at such
locations, the Secretary shall indicate the additional
resources necessary to ensure such availability within one
year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

SA 1667. Mr. CASEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

On page 214, line 12, insert ``18 months,'' after ``12
months,''.
______

SA 1668. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

On page 475, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1211. AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER DEFENSE ARTICLES AND
EQUIPMENT TO ARMED FORCES OF LEBANON AND
JORDAN.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
of Defense, in consultation with the congressional defense
committees, may transfer defense articles and equipment used
by the United States Armed Forces in Iraq as of the date of
the enactment of this Act to the armed forces of the
Governments of Lebanon and Jordan in a manner that is
appropriate with the drawdown of forces in Iraq.
______

SA 1669. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Bond, Ms. Landrieu, Ms.
Murkowski, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Burris, and
Mr. Schumer) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to
the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

At the end of subtitle B of title VII, insert the
following:

SEC. 713. REDUCTION OF MINIMUM DISTANCE OF TRAVEL FOR
REIMBURSEMENT OF COVERED BENEFICIARIES OF THE
MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM FOR TRAVEL FOR
SPECIALTY HEALTH CARE.

(a) Reduction.--Section 1074i(a) of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``100 miles'' and inserting ``50
miles''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to
referrals for specialty health care made on or after such
effective date.
(c) Offset.--The amount authorized to be appropriated by
section 301(a)(4) for operation and maintenance for the Air
Force is hereby decreased by $25,000,000, with the amount of
the decrease to be derived from amounts available for line
item # 320 in the table in section 4301 for advertising.
______

SA 1670. Mr. MENENDEZ submitted an amendment intended to be proposed

[[Page 18462]]

by him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

On page 435, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 1083. PAYMENT BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF PLOT
ALLOWANCE FOR SPOUSES AND CHILDREN OF CERTAIN
VETERANS WHO ARE BURIED IN STATE CEMETERIES.

(a) Plot Allowance.--Section 2303 of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(c)(1) In the case of an individual described in
paragraph (2) who is buried in a cemetery that is owned by a
State or by an agency or political subdivision of a State,
the Secretary shall pay to such State, agency, or political
subdivision the sum of $300 as a plot or interment allowance
for such individual.
``(2) An individual described in this paragraph is a
spouse, surviving spouse (which for purposes of this chapter
includes a surviving spouse who had a subsequent remarriage),
minor child (which for purposes of this chapter includes a
child under 21 years of age, or under 23 years of age if
pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational
institution), or, in the discretion of the Secretary,
unmarried adult child of any of person described in paragraph
(1), (2), (3), (4), or (7) of section 2402 of this title.''.
(b) Effective Date.--Subsection (c) of section 2303 of
title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a),
shall apply with respect to an individual who dies on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

SA 1671. Mr. KYL (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Inhofe, and Mr.
Vitter) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for the defense activities of the Department of
Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

At the end of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1232. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON NON-STRATEGIC NUCLEAR
FORCES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture
of the United States, chaired by former Secretaries of
Defense William Perry and James Schlesinger, recently
concluded that there is significant asymmetry between the
tactical nuclear weapons arsenals of the Russian Federation
and the United States.
(2) The Commission also determined that ``[a]s part of its
strategy to assure its allies, the United States should not
abandon strategic equivalency with Russia. Overall
equivalence is important to many U.S. allies in Europe. The
United States should not cede to Russia a posture of
superiority in the name of deemphasizing nuclear weapons in
U.S. military strategy. There seems no near-term prospect of
such a result in the balance of operationally deployed
strategic nuclear weapons.''
(3) The Commission continued, ``But that balance does not
exist in non-strategic nuclear forces, where Russia enjoys a
sizeable numerical advantage. As noted above, it stores
thousands of these weapons in apparent support of possible
military operations west of the Urals. The United States
deploys a small fraction of that number in support of nuclear
sharing agreements in NATO. Precise numbers for the U.S.
deployments are classified but their total is only about five
percent of the total at the height of the Cold War. Strict
U.S.-Russian equivalence in NSNF numbers is unnecessary. But
the current imbalance is stark and worrisome to some U.S.
allies in Central Europe. If and as reductions continue in
the number of operationally deployed strategic nuclear
weapons, this imbalance will become more apparent and allies
less assured.''
(4) The Commission stated, ``Some U.S. allies located
closer to Russia, however, are fearful of Russia and its
tactical nuclear forces. The imbalance in non-strategic
nuclear weapons, which greatly favors Russia, is of rising
concern and an illustration of the new challenges of
strategic stability as reductions in strategic weapons
proceed.''
(5) The Commission also stated, ``The combination of new
warhead designs, the estimated production capability for new
nuclear warheads, and precision delivery systems such as the
Iskander short-range tactical ballistic missile (known as the
SS-26 in the West), open up new possibilities for Russian
efforts to threaten to use nuclear weapons to influence
regional conflicts.''
(b) Sense of the Senate.--The Senate strongly urges the
President--
(1) to make it a priority in all United States arms control
negotiations with Russia to gain a verifiable accounting of
the tactical nuclear weapons of Russia, including the types,
current deployments, and security from theft of the same;
(2) to ensure that reductions in the tactical nuclear
weapons of Russia are a top priority in any arms control
negotiation with the Russian Federation; and
(3) to assure United States allies that they are protected
from any use or threatened use of tactical nuclear weapons
from Russia.
______

SA 1672. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 68, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
(6) A description of current and past sales, or contracts
for the sale, by the Russian Federation of technology,
materials, components, or services related to nuclear weapons
or nuclear energy, ballistic missile or space launch
capabilities, or advanced conventional weapons systems.
______

SA 1673. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 424, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 1059. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE
REFURBISHMENT, REUSE, OR REPLACEMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense may not carry out
any program for the refurbishment, reuse, or replacement of
the United States nuclear weapons stockpile unless the
Director of the Sandia National Laboratory, the Director of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Director of the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and JASON certify to
the congressional defense committees that the program--
(1) may be carried out without the need for any testing;
(2) will preserve the core intellectual and technical
competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons,
including weapons design, system integration, manufacturing,
security, use control, reliability assessment, and
certification; and
(3) will provide for the long-term safety, security,
reliability, and credibility of the United States nuclear
deterrent and extended deterrent.
(b) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``refurbishment'' means a strategy of, or
similar to, the lifetime extension program, whereby
individual warhead components are replaced before they
degrade with components of nearly identical design or that
meet the same form, fit, and function.
(2) The term ``reuse'' means a strategy of using surplus
pits or secondaries from other warhead types or, in certain
cases, a strategy involving the new manufacture of these
components.
(3) The term ``replacement'' means a strategy that permits
replacing nuclear components with modern designs.
______

SA 1674. Mr. KYL submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON STATUS OF UNITED STATES NUCLEAR WEAPONS
COMPLEX.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States found that ``the physical infrastructure'' of the
United States nuclear weapons complex ``is in serious need of
transformation.''
(2) The Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States also found that ``the intellectual infrastructure is
also in serious trouble. A major cause is the recent (and
projected) decline in resources.''
(3) The Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States stated, ``Once core capabilities are established, the
Congress

[[Page 18463]]

should require that annual NNSA budget submissions include an
assessment of whether the budget as proposed will maintain
these capabilities. To monitor progress, the NNSA and the
White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) should
establish a formal mechanism for tracking funding sources for
the weapons laboratories, without additional administrative
burden on the laboratories.''
(4) The Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United
States recommended, ``The NNSA should conduct a study of the
core competencies needed in the weapons complex, and the
Congress and Office of Management and Budget should use these
as a tool for determining how to fund the NNSA.''
(b) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall, in
consultation with the directors of the national nuclear
weapons laboratories and nuclear weapons production
facilities and as part of the budget justification materials
submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense
budget for each fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of
the President under section 1105(a) of title 31, United
States Code), submit a report on the condition and status of
the nuclear weapons complex of the United States. The report
shall include the following elements:
(1) An assessment of whether the budget is sufficient to
preserve the core intellectual and technical competencies of
the United States in nuclear weapons, including weapons
design, system integration, manufacturing, security, use
control, reliability assessment, and certification.
(2) A description of the demographics and experience of the
nuclear weapons workforce, including the number of
individuals who have ever participated in an underground
nuclear test.
(3) A plan for enabling the design laboratories to grow the
required expertise and sustain it over the long term.
(4) An assessment of the condition and status of the
national nuclear weapons laboratories and nuclear weapons
production facilities.
(5) A plan to provide for the long-term safety, security,
reliability, and credibility of the United States nuclear
deterrent and extended deterrent.
(6) An assessment of the condition and status of the
nuclear weapons production complex and the ability of the
complex to sustain and modernize the nuclear deterrent.
(c) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) The term ``national nuclear weapons laboratories''
includes Sandia National Laboratory, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
(2) The term ``nuclear weapons production facilities''
means the Y-12 complex at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the
Savannah River Site, the Pantex Plant, the Nevada Test Site,
and the Kansas City Plant.
______

SA 1675. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Murkowski) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle D of title VI, add the following:

SEC. 652. CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY OF RESERVE COMPONENT
MEMBERS DURING PHYSICAL DISABILITY EVALUATION
FOLLOWING MOBILIZATION AND DEPLOYMENT.

Section 1218 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d)(1) The Secretary of a military department shall
ensure that each member of a reserve component under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary who is determined, after a
mobilization and deployment to an area in which imminent
danger pay is authorized under section 310 of title 37, to
require evaluation for a physical or mental disability which
could result in separation or retirement for disability under
this chapter or placement on the temporary disability retired
list or inactive status list under this chapter is retained
on active duty during the disability evaluation process until
such time as such member is--
``(A) cleared by appropriate authorities for continuation
on active duty; or
``(B) separated, retired, or placed on the temporary
disability retired list or inactive status list.
``(2)(A) A member described in paragraph (1) may request
termination of active duty under such paragraph at any time
during the demobilization or disability evaluation process of
such member.
``(B) Upon a request under subparagraph (A), a member
described in paragraph (1) shall only be released from active
duty after the member receives counseling about the
consequences of termination of active duty.
``(C) Each release from active duty under subparagraph (B)
shall be thoroughly documented.
``(3) The requirements in paragraph (1) shall expire on the
date that is five years after the date of the enactment of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2010.''.

SEC. 653. USE OF LOCAL RESIDENCES FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CARE
FOR CERTAIN RESERVE COMPONENT MEMBERS.

Section 1222 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Use of Local Residences for Certain Reserve Component
Members.--(1)(A) A member of a reserve component described by
subparagraph (B) may be assigned to the community-based
warrior transition unit located nearest to the member's
permanent place of residence if residing at that location
is--
``(i) medically feasible, as determined by a licensed
military health care provider; and
``(ii) consistent with--
``(I) the needs of the armed forces; and
``(II) the optimal course of medical treatment of the
member.
``(B) A member of a reserve component described by this
subparagraph is any member remaining on active duty under
section 1218(d) of this title during the period the member is
on active duty under such subsection.
``(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
terminating, altering, or otherwise affecting the authority
of the commander of a member described in paragraph (1)(B) to
order the member to perform duties consistent with the
member's fitness for duty.
``(3) The Secretary concerned shall pay any reasonable
expenses of transportation, lodging, and meals incurred by a
member residing at the member's permanent place of residence
under this subsection in connection with travel from the
member's permanent place of residence to a medical facility
during the period in which the member is covered by this
subsection.''.

SEC. 654. ASSISTANCE WITH TRANSITIONAL BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 61 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1218 the
following new section:

``Sec. 1218a. Discharge or release from active duty:
transition assistance

``The Secretary of a military department shall provide to a
member of a reserve component under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary who is injured while on active duty in the armed
forces the following before such member is demobilized or
separated from the armed forces:
``(1) Information on the availability of care and
administrative processing through community based warrior
transition units.
``(2) The location of the community based warrior
transition unit located nearest to the member's permanent
place of residence.
``(3) An opportunity to consult with a member of the
applicable judge advocate general's corps, or other qualified
legal assistance attorney, regarding the member's eligibility
for compensation, disability, or other transitional
benefits.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 61 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1218 the following new
item:

``1218a. Discharge or release from active duty: transition
assistance.''.
______

SA 1676. Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Lieberman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 66, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(e) Comptroller General Review.--The Comptroller General of
the United States shall--
(1) review the assessment required by subsection (b) and
the plan required by subsection (c); and
(2) not later than 120 days after receiving the assessment
and the plan, provide to the congressional defense committees
the results of the review.
______

SA 1677. Mr. BEGICH (for himself, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Lieberman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title II, add the following:

[[Page 18464]]

SEC. 245. CONTINUED PRODUCTION OF GROUND-BASED INTERCEPTOR
MISSILE AND OPERATION OF MISSILE FIELD 1 AT
FORT GREELY, ALASKA.

(a) Limitation on Break in Production.--The Secretary of
Defense shall ensure that the Missile Defense Agency does not
allow a break in production of the Ground-based Interceptor
missile until the Department of Defense has--
(1) completed the Ballistic Missile Defense Review; and
(2) made a determination with respect to the number of
Ground-based Interceptor missiles that will be necessary to
support the service life of the Ground-based Midcourse
Defense element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System.
(b) Limitation on Certain Actions With Respect to Missile
Field 1 and Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely, Alaska.--
(1) Limitation on decommissioning of missile field 1.--The
Secretary of Defense shall ensure that Missile Field 1 at
Fort Greely, Alaska, does not complete decommissioning until
seven silos have been emplaced at Missile Field 2 at Fort
Greely.
(2) Limitation with respect to disposition of silos at
missile field 2.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that
no irreversible decision is made with respect to the
disposition of operational silos at Missile Field 2 at Fort
Greely, Alaska, until that date that is 60 days after the
date on which the reports required by subsections (b)(3) and
(c)(3) of section 243 are submitted to the congressional
defense committees.
______

SA 1678. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 321, strike line 18 and all that follows through
page 394, line 8 and insert the following:

SEC. 1031. REPEAL OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS.

(a) Repeal.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code, is repealed.
(2) Technical and conforming amendment.--The table of
chapters for title 10, United States Code, is amended by
striking the item relating to chapter 47A.
(b) Transition Procedures.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``covered
matter'' means a matter--
(A) brought before a military commission convened under
chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code, as in effect on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) in which final judgment has not been entered, or the
matter has not otherwise become final, on the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Dismissal.--Any covered matter shall be dismissed
without prejudice.
(3) Statute of limitations.--For any offense charged in a
covered matter dismissed under paragraph (2), the running of
the statute of limitations for that offense shall be tolled
during the period beginning on the date on which charges
relating to the offense were filed with a military commission
convened under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code,
as in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this
Act, and ending on the date of enactment of this Act.
______

SA 1679. Mr. GRASSLEY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 435, between line 14 and 15, insert the following:

SEC. 1083. INVESTIGATIONS, AUDITS, INSPECTIONS, EVALUATIONS,
AND REVIEWS CONDUCTED BY INSPECTORS GENERAL.

Section 3518(c) of title 44, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (3)'';
(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), this subchapter shall
not apply to the collection of information during the conduct
of any investigation, audit, inspection, evaluation, or other
review conducted by--
``(A) any Federal office of Inspector General, including--
``(i) any office of Inspector General of any establishment,
Federal entity, or designated Federal entity as those terms
are defined under sections 12(2), 8G(a)(1), and 8G(a)(2) of
the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.),
respectively; or
``(ii) any office of Special Inspector General established
by statute;
``(B) the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity
and Efficiency established under section 11 of the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.); or
``(C) the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
established under section 1521 of division A of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5; 123
Stat. 289).''.
______

SA 1680. Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Bond, Mr. Begich,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Casey, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Dorgan,
Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Risch, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mrs.
Shaheen) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle A of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1211. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR THE STATE
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

(a) Availability of Appropriated Funds.--The Secretary of
Defense may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary,
use funds appropriated to the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2010 to pay the costs incurred by the National
Guard (including the costs of pay and allowances of members
of the National Guard) in conducting activities under the
State Partnership Program--
(1) to support the objectives of the commander of the
combatant command for the theater of operations in which such
activities are conducted; or
(2) to build international civil-military partnerships and
capacity on matters relating to defense and security.
(b) Limitations.--
(1) Approval by commander of combatant command and chief of
mission.--Funds shall not be available under subsection (a)
for activities conducted under the State Partnership Program
in a foreign country unless such activities are jointly
approved by the commander of the combatant command concerned
and the chief of mission concerned.
(2) Participation by members.--Funds shall not be available
under subsection (a) for the participation of a member of the
National Guard in activities conducted under the State
Partnership Program in a foreign country unless the member is
on active duty in the Armed Forces at the time of such
participation.
(c) Reimbursement.--In the event of the participation of
personnel of a department or agency of the United States
Government (other than the Department of Defense) in
activities for which payment is made under subsection (a),
the head of such department or agency shall reimburse the
Secretary of Defense for the costs associated with the
participation of such personnel in such activities. Amounts
reimbursed the Department of Defense under this subsection
shall be deposited in the appropriation or account from which
amounts for the payment concerned were derived. Any amounts
so deposited shall be merged with amounts in such
appropriation or account, and shall be available for the same
purposes, and subject to the same conditions and limitations,
as amounts in such appropriation or account.
______

SA 1681. Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Tester, and Mr.
Wyden) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title VI insert the following:

SEC. 635. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES FOR MEMBERS OF
THE RESERVE COMPONENTS FOR LONG DISTANCE AND
CERTAIN OTHER TRAVEL TO INACTIVE DUTY TRAINING.

Section 408a(c) of title 37, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after the first sentence the following: ``The
regulations may not, for purposes of subsection (a), define
normal commuting distance as any distance greater then 100
miles.''.
______

SA 1682. Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Tester,
Mr. Bennett, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Barrasso, and Mr. Dorgan) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military

[[Page 18465]]

personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1083. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF
THE INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) President Barack Obama stated in his speech on April 4,
2009, in Prague, Czech Republic, on working toward a world
without nuclear weapons, ``as long as these weapons exist, we
will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter
any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies''.
(2) The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture
of the United States found, in the Commission's final report,
that preserving the triad of strategic nuclear delivery
systems is essential to ensuring the reliability and
credibility of the nuclear force, and that the nuclear triad
becomes even more important as the size of the nuclear force
of the United States is reduced.
(3) The stabilizing, reliable, and cost-effective Minuteman
III intercontinental ballistic missile is a critically
important component of the nuclear triad, essential for the
United States to deter its enemies, assure its allies, and
dissuade potential future adversaries.
(4) The current 450-missile force, with its inherent broad
dispersion, low warhead loading, and high readiness and
reliability, makes a successful disarming attack nearly
impossible and eliminates pressure to maintain a launch-on-
warning posture.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) as the United States and Russia negotiate further
reductions in strategic offensive arsenals, the United States
must be certain that the long-term vitality of the triad of
strategic nuclear delivery systems is not threatened;
(2) the land-based nuclear force is the most stabilizing
portion of the nuclear arsenal of the United States and it
becomes even more so as the total number of weapons in the
arsenal shrinks; and
(3) a robust intercontinental ballistic missile force is an
essential component of the nuclear triad and must be retained
to advance the Nation's nuclear strategy of deterrence,
assurance, and dissuasion.
______

SA 1683. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of title X, add the following:

Subtitle I--Quadrennial Defense Review Matters

SEC. 1091. NATIONAL DEFENSE PANEL.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a bipartisan,
independent panel to be known as the National Defense Panel
(in this section referred to as the ``Panel'').
(b) Membership.--The Panel shall be composed of twelve
members who are recognized experts in matters relating to the
national security of the United States. The members shall be
appointed as follows:
(1) Three by the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives.
(2) Three by the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate.
(3) Three by the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives.
(4) Three by the ranking member of the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate.
(c) Co-Chairs of the Panel.--The chairman of the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
chairman of the Committee of Armed Services of the Senate
shall each designate one of their appointees under subsection
(b) to serve as co-chair of the panel.
(d) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Panel. Any vacancy in the Panel
shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(e) Duties.--The Panel shall--
(1) review the national defense strategy, the national
military strategy, the Secretary of Defense's terms of
reference, and any other materials providing the basis for,
or substantial inputs to, the work of the Department of
Defense on the 2009 quadrennial defense review under section
118 of title 10, United States Code (in this subsection
referred to as the ``2009 QDR''), as well as the 2009 QDR
itself;
(2) conduct an assessment of the assumptions, strategy,
findings, costs, and risks in the report of the 2009 QDR
under subsection (d) of such section, with particular
attention paid to the risks described in that report;
(3) submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretary an
independent assessment of a variety of possible force
structures of the Armed Forces, including the force structure
identified in the report of the 2009 QDR, suitable to meet
the requirements identified in the review required in
paragraph (1);
(4) to the extent practicable, estimate the funding
required by fiscal year, in constant fiscal year 2010
dollars, to organize, equip, and support the forces
contemplated under the force structures included in the
assessment under paragraph (3); and
(5) provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives and the Secretary of
Defense, through the reports under subsection (g), any
recommendations it considers appropriate for their
consideration.
(f) First Meeting.--The Panel shall hold its first meeting
not later than 30 days after the date on which all
appointments to the Panel under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and
(4) of subsection (b) have been made.
(g) Reports.--
(1) Interim report of panel.--Not later than February 15,
2010, the Panel shall submit an interim report on its
findings to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate
and House of Representatives and to the Secretary of Defense.
(2) Final report of panel.--Not later than January 15,
2011, the Panel shall submit its final report, together with
any recommendations, to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and House of Representatives and to the Secretary
of Defense.
(3) Report of secretary of defense.--Not later than
February 15, 2011, the Secretary of Defense, after
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and House of Representatives the Secretary's comments
on the Panel's final report under paragraph (2).
(h) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Panel may
secure directly from the Department of Defense and any of
components of the Department such information as the Panel
considers necessary to carry out its duties under this
section. The Secretary of Defense and the head of the
component concerned shall ensure that information requested
by the Panel under this subsection is promptly provided.
(i) FFRDC Support.--Upon the request of the co-chairs of
the Panel, the Secretary of Defense shall make available to
the Panel the services of any federally funded research and
development center that is covered by a sponsoring agreement
of the Department of Defense.
(j) Personnel Matters.--The Panel shall have the
authorities provided in section 3161 of title 5, United
States Code, and shall be subject to the conditions set forth
in such section.
(k) Payment of Panel Expenses.--Funds for activities of the
Panel shall be provided from unobligated amounts available to
the Department of Defense.
(l) Termination.--The Panel shall terminate 45 days after
the date on which the Panel submits its final report under
subsection (g)(2).

SEC. 1092. REPORTS ON STATUTORY COMPLIANCE OF THE REPORT ON
THE 2009 QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW.

(a) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than 90 days
after the Secretary of Defense submits the report required by
subsection (d) of section 118 of title 10, United States
Code, on the 2009 quadrennial defense review required by
subsection (a) of that section, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives and to
the Secretary of Defense a report on the degree to which the
report on the 2009 quadrennial defense review complies with
the requirements of such subsection (d).
(b) Secretary of Defense Report.--If the Comptroller
General determines that the report on the 2009 quadrennial
defense review deviates significantly from the requirements
of subsection (d) of section 118 of title 10, United States
Code, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees
on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives
a report addressing the areas of deviation not later than 30
days after the submittal of the report by the Comptroller
General required by subsection (a).

SEC. 1093. REPORT ON THE FORCE STRUCTURE FINDINGS OF THE 2009
QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW.

(a) In General.--Concurrent with the delivery of the report
on the 2009 quadrennial defense review required by section
118(d) of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of
the Senate and House of Representatives a report with a
classified annex containing--
(1) the analyses used to determine and support the findings
on force structure required by such section; and
(2) a description of any changes from the 2006 quadrennial
defense review to the minimum military requirements for major
military capabilities.
(b) Major Military Capabilities Defined.--In this section,
the term ``major military capabilities'' includes any
capability the Secretary determines to be a major military
capability, any capability discussed in the report of the
2006 quadrennial defense review, and any capability described
in paragraph (9) or (10) of section 118(d) of title 10,
United States Code.

[[Page 18466]]

______

SA 1684. Mr. THUNE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of title X, add the following:

Subtitle I--Quadrennial Defense Review Matters

SEC. 1091. NATIONAL DEFENSE PANEL.

SEC. 1092. REPORTS ON STATUTORY COMPLIANCE OF THE REPORT ON
THE 2009 QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW.

SEC. 1093. REPORT ON THE FORCE STRUCTURE FINDINGS OF THE 2009
QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW.

SA 1685. Mr. ENSIGN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. HATE CRIMES.

(a) Findings.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, any finding by Congress in division ___ of this Act
relating to actual or perceived gender identity shall have no
force or effect and shall be null and void.
(b) Support for Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the Attorney
General may not provide assistance to a State, local, or
tribal law enforcement agency under section __04 of this Act
based on actual or perceived gender identity.
(c) Federal Offense.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, section 924 of title 18, United States Code, as
added by section __07 of this Act, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``gender
identity,''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``gender identity'';
and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by adding ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (4).
(d) Statistics.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, subsection (b)(1) of the first section of the Hate
Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534 note), as amended by
section __08 of this Act, is amended by striking ``and gender
identity''.
(e) Rule of Construction.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, division __ of this Act (relating to
hate crimes), and the amendments made by that division, shall
not apply to actual or perceived gender identity.
______

SA 1686. Mr. SANDERS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by

[[Page 18467]]

him to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE BOARD OF
GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 714 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by striking all after ``shall
audit an agency'' and inserting a period.
(b) Audit.--Section 714 of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(e) Audit and Report of the Federal Reserve System.--
``(1) In general.--The audit of the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks
under subsection (b) shall be completed before the end of
2010.
``(2) Report.--
``(A) Required.--A report on the audit referred to in
paragraph (1) shall be submitted by the Comptroller General
to the Congress before the end of the 90-day period beginning
on the date on which such audit is completed and made
available to the Speaker of the House, the majority and
minority leaders of the House of Representatives, the
majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the committee and each subcommittee of
jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and the Senate,
and any other Member of Congress who requests it.
``(B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall
include a detailed description of the findings and conclusion
of the Comptroller General with respect to the audit that is
the subject of the report, together with such recommendations
for legislative or administrative action as the Comptroller
General may determine to be appropriate.''.
______

SA 1687. Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Corker) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1390, to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for
defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 475, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1211. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT FOR COALITION SUPPORT
FUND REIMBURSEMENTS.

Section 1232(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181; 122 Stat. 392), as
amended by section 1217 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417;
122 Stat. 4634), is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``the Secretary of
Defense shall submit'' and inserting ``the Secretary of
Defense, after consultation with the Secretary of State,
shall submit''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as
clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and indenting
each clause, as so redesignated, 6 ems from the left margin;
(B) by striking ``shall include an itemized description''
and inserting the following: ``shall include the following:
``(A) An itemized description''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) A certification that the reimbursement--
``(i) is consistent with the national security interests of
the United States; and
``(ii) will not adversely impact the balance of power in
the region.''.
______

SA 1688. Ms. SNOWE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1083. CONTRACTING IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the terms ``Administration'' and ``Administrator'' mean
the Small Business Administration and the Administrator
thereof, respectively; and
(2) the terms ``HUBZone small business concern'', ``small
business concern'', ``small business concern owned and
controlled by service-disabled veterans'', and ``small
business concern owned and controlled by women'' have the
same meanings as in section 3 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 632).
(b) Contracting Opportunities.--Section 31(b)(2)(B) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657a(b)(2)(B)) is amended by
striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
(c) Contracting Goals.--Section 15(g)(1) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 644(g)(1)) is amended in the fourth
sentence by inserting ``and subcontract'' after ``not less
than 3 percent of the total value of all prime contract''.
(d) Mentor-Protege Programs.--The Administrator may
establish mentor-protege programs for small business concerns
owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans, small
business concerns owned and controlled by women, and HUBZone
small business concerns modeled on the mentor-protege program
of the Administration for small business concerns
participating in programs under section 8(a) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)).
______

SA 1689. Mrs. MURRAY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by her to the bill S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military
construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of subtitle G of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1073. REPORT ON DOCUMENTATION OF SUPPORT PROVIDED BY
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OUTSIDE THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR MILITARY OCCUPATIONS.

(a) In General.--Not later than March 31, 2010, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives a report on the documentation of
the support provided by members of the Armed Forces while
deployed in support of contingency operations that is
provided--
(1) as a result of operational requirements; and
(2) outside of the requirements of their military
occupations.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the mechanisms used by the Secretary,
if any, to document the support provided by members of the
Armed Forces while deployed in support of contingency
operations that is provided as a result of operational
requirements and outside of the requirements of their
military occupations, including documentation of
participation in operational missions that involve combat
experience.
(2) Recommendations for the improvement or creation of
mechanisms described in paragraph (1).
(3) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
creating and implementing an experience, service, or skill
identifier to identify the support described in paragraph
(1).
(4) An assessment of whether such identifier could be used
effectively and efficiently for the provision of training and
assignment matching.
(5) An assessment of whether the current chain of command
construct allows members described in paragraph (1) who
provide support described in such paragraph sufficient
opportunity to obtain recognition for their service.
(6) An identification of the differences between service in
the reserve components of the Armed Forces and service in the
regular components of the Armed Forces and how those
differences affect the matters described in paragraphs (1)
through (5).
(7) An assessment of how a mechanism described in paragraph
(1) could be used to improve determinations of whether a
member of the Armed Forces has, for purposes of establishing
service-connection for a disease or injury under section
1154(b) of title 38, United States Code, engaged in combat
with the enemy in active service with a military, naval, or
air organization of the United States during a period of war,
campaign, or expedition.

____________________

NOTICES OF HEARINGS

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, July 28, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room
SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of James J.

[[Page 18468]]

Markowsky, to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Fossil Energy),
Warren F. Miller, Jr., to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (Nuclear
Energy) and Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste,
Anthony M. Babauta, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior
(Insular Areas), and Jonathan B. Jarvis, to be the Director of the
National Park Service.
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 Amandaxkelly@
energy.senate.gov.
For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571
or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

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 business meeting has
been scheduled before Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The
business meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 28, 2009, at 10 a.m., in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, immediately
preceding the hearing on other nominations.
The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending
nominations.
For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at (202) 224-7571
or Amanda Kelly at (202) 224-6836.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

Mr. LEVIN. 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, July 21, 2009, in Russell 253, at
2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on Tuesday, July 21, at 10
a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on environment and public works and subcommittee on green
jobs and the new economy

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Green Jobs and
the New Economy be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-406 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 10:15 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 2:15 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, to hold a hearing entitled ``The
National Security Implications of Climate Change.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate, on July 21, 2009, at 10 a.m., in SH-216 of the Hart Senate
Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on Tuesday, July 21, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing
entitled, ``Excessive Speculation in the Wheat Market.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Select Committee on Intelligence

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on July 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border
Security, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on
July 21, 2009, at 2:15 pm, in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ensuring a Legal Workforce:
What Changes Should be Made to Our Current Employment Verification
System?''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Army
fellow in my office, David Evans, be granted the privileges of the
floor during consideration of this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that
Lea Shanley, a congressional science fellow in my office, be granted
the privilege of the floor for the duration of my statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

COURT OF IMPEACHMENT FLOOR PRIVILEGES

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate convenes as a Court of Impeachment with regard to the case of
Samuel B. Kent, the following list of staff from the House of
Representatives be provided floor privileges during those proceedings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWN. I send the list to the desk.
The list is as follows:

Phil Tahtakran, Branden Ritchie, Ryan Clough, Michael Lenn,
Danielle Brown, Alan Baron, Allison Halataei, Jessica Klein,
and Kirsten Konar.

____________________

APPOINTMENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the majority leader,
pursuant to Public Law 111-25, announces the appointment of the
following individuals to serve as members of the Ronald Reagan
Centennial Commission: Sig Rogich of Nevada and Frank Fahrenkoph of
Nevada.

____________________

MAKING MINORITY PARTY APPOINTMENTS

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 218, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 218) making minority party
appointments to the 111th Congress.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.

[[Page 18469]]

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 218) was agreed to, as follows:

S. Res. 218

Resolved, That the following be the minority membership on
the following committees for the remainder of the 111th
Congress, or until their successors ar appointed:
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE NUTRITION AND FORESTRY: Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McConnell, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Thune, and Mr.
Cornyn.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Mr. Lugar, Mr. Corker, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Risch, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Wicker, and
Mr. Inhofe.
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS:
Ms. Collins, Mr. Coburn, Mr. McCain, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Ensign, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Bennett.
COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP: Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Bond, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Thune, Mr. Enzi, Mr.
Isakson, Mr. Wicker, and Mr. Risch.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING: Mr. Martinez, Mr. Shelby, Ms.
Collins, Mr. Corker, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Graham,
and Mr. Chambliss.

____________________

40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 164, at the desk
and just received from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 164) recognizing the
40th anniversary of the Food and Nutrition Service of the
Department of Agriculture.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
concurrent resolution.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to
the concurrent resolution be printed in the Record, without intervening
action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 164) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.

____________________

S. 1390 AMENDMENT FILING DEADLINE

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, the
managers of the Department of Defense authorization measure have asked
for a filing deadline of first-degree amendments to the bill. While no
consent will be granted tonight, it is expected that tomorrow morning
unanimous consent will be requested for a filing deadline of 11 a.m.,
Wednesday, July 22.

____________________

NEW FRONTIER CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL ACT

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2245, which was received
from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 2245) to authorize the President, in
conjunction with the 40th anniversary of the historic and
first lunar landing by humans in 1969, to award gold medals
on behalf of the United States Congress to Neil A. Armstrong,
the first human to walk on the moon; Edwin E. ``Buzz''
Aldrin, Jr., the pilot of the lunar module and second person
to walk on the moon; Michael Collins, the pilot of their
Apollo 11 mission's command module; and, the first American
to orbit the Earth, John Herschel Glenn, Jr.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I would note that of the four names the
clerk read--those four national heroes--two of them are from Ohio, Neil
Armstrong and John Glenn.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be
read three times, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related
to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 2245) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.

____________________

ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m.
tomorrow, Wednesday, July 22; that following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and the Senate resume consideration of Calendar No. 89, S.
1390, the Department of Defense authorization bill, as provided for
under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, under the previous order, the time until 12
o'clock will be equally divided and controlled between Senators Thune
and Durbin or their designees. At 12 o'clock, the Senate will proceed
to a rollcall vote in relation to the Thune amendment. Additional
rollcall votes are expected throughout the day.
As a reminder, at 2 p.m. tomorrow, there will be a live quorum with
respect to the Court of Impeachment of Samuel B. Kent.

____________________

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 the Senate stand
adjourned under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:40 p.m., adjourned until
Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

[[Page 18470]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Tuesday, July 21, 2009

The House met at 10:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker
pro tempore (Mr. Salazar).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:

Washington, DC,

July 21, 2009.
I hereby appoint the Honorable John T. Salazar 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 6, 2009, 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 30 minutes and each Member, other than the majority
and minority leaders and the minority whip, limited to 5 minutes.

____________________

CALIFORNIA'S THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT'S PERSPECTIVE ON HEALTH CARE
LEGISLATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) for 5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, last night I had a
telephone town hall with constituents in my district. As I made the
call, I informed them that we were going to discuss any subject they
wanted, but I wanted to concentrate on health care. As a result, I had
one of the largest responses I ever had. Thousands of people got on the
line. Most times, there were no less than 1,400 people on the line. I
didn't choose them by party. I didn't choose them by income. I didn't
choose them by occupation. It was random, calling people in my
district.
The response was overwhelming, overwhelmingly negative with respect
to the plans they hear about that are coming from the White House, the
Senate and the House. Why were they negative? They were negative
because the people in my district were concerned about whether or not
the government was going to dominate health care in this country, and
those who were satisfied with their plans--even though they had some
imperfections, even though they had some desire to have them improved,
but by and large had made choices with respect to their plans--wondered
whether their freedom of choice would be taken away by the government
plan presented by the President and by the leadership in both the
Senate and the House. It was interesting, they also were very concerned
about the cost. When they hear the word $1 trillion, they begin to
think that this particular plan has real problems. As we discussed the
various aspects of it, they referred me to the CBO, the Congressional
Budget Office's report that disappointed the White House and the
Democratic leadership in the House and the Senate because the report
suggested that this program cannot pay for itself, that we're talking
about at least $1 trillion to be imposed on the American people.
The dialogue that I had with my constituents was very lively. They
were also concerned about the fact that we have Medicare and Medicaid--
as we call it in California, Medi-Cal--that is on an unsustainable path
to bankruptcy. This has been pointed out by the director of CBO as well
as many others outside the halls of Congress and outside the Federal
Government. So the American people are trying to tell us that they are
concerned that we have an unsustainable program already that we have
not faced up to; and on top of that, we're going to impose this new
national health plan. It was interesting because the President and the
Democratic leadership have said that, look, the public option is just
that. It's not going to destroy the private sector. Yet constituents in
my district were very, very clear as to their understanding of the
necessary impact of this program. They also were concerned about the
promises made in this plan. I guess you could sum it up in these words:
First entitlement and then rationing. When government takes over a
program like medical care, and when it promises everything, and when
you see the track record with respect to Medicare and Medicaid, you
understand that at some point in time, we're going to hit the fiscal
wall, and government's only ability to control cost at that point in
time--if you look historically at other government-centered health
programs around the world--is through rationing.
You can look at it in Canada. You can look at it in Great Britain.
You can look at it in every country around the world. And frankly, I do
not want--and my constituents told me last night they do not want the
imposition of a government bureaucrat between them, as patients, and
their doctors.
Interestingly, last night in one of our committees marking up that
case, that question was posed: Could we say in the plan that there
would not be the intervention of a government bureaucrat to dictate to
your doctor as to what your health care should be? That specific
amendment was voted down almost on a party-line vote. Every Democrat on
the committee, save one, voted against that prohibition; and every
Republican voted for it. In other words, it was crystal clear. The
amendment presented last night before that committee was: In this plan,
can we at least promise the American people there will not be
intervention by a Federal bureaucrat to dictate the care you will
receive or not receive from your doctor? That specific public policy
prohibition was voted down.
If you believe that health care delivered by the Federal Government
is superior to what you get now, go to your local DMV and see if you'd
like them making the decision with respect to your medical care.

____________________

PAYGO

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this week
the House will debate legislation and give the principle of pay-as-you-
go, or PAYGO, the force of law. Quite simply, supporting PAYGO means
that we agree to pay for what we buy; and it can be one of the most
important actions we take for fiscal discipline in this Congress. PAYGO
is essential because America faces unprecedented debt and a fiscal year
2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion. A New York Times analysis found that 90
percent of that deficit is attributable to the economic downturn, Bush
administration policies, and the extension of those policies. However
we got into this hole, it's imperative that we find a way out of it.
PAYGO is not a cure-all, not a solution entirely to our deficits. But
it is an important and valuable start, and it is a proven first step to
deficit reduction.
In the 1990s, the Clinton administration turned record deficits,
accumulated by the two previous Republican

[[Page 18471]]

administrations, into record surplus; and the PAYGO rule, supported on
a bipartisan basis by Republicans and Democrats, was a key part in that
fiscal transformation. As President Obama has recognized, and I quote,
``It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved to
record surpluses in the 1990s and that when this rule was abandoned, we
returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt.''
Today we can once again use PAYGO to begin rolling back the dangerous
fiscal situation that confronts us. Under statutory PAYGO, Congress
will be required to find savings to balance the dollars we spend. On
the one hand, it will constrain unnecessary spending and subsidies. On
the other, it will force those in favor of tax cuts to explain exactly
what they want to go without in return. In other words, pay for them.
Of course none of those choices are easy, but it is exactly the
avoidance of hard choices that saddles our children and grandchildren
with the debt that confronts us. In addition, deficit reduction will
mean fewer interest payments on our debt which, in turn, will help us
make sustainable entitlements in the priorities that matter most to the
American people, including education, clean energy and health care.
The PAYGO law would apply to new policies that reduce revenue or
expand entitlement spending. It will exempt extensions of current
policy on the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax and middle-income
tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and Medicare payments to doctors. Some
would criticize these exemptions, but I see them as an important way of
keeping PAYGO credible and enforceable. It is clear that there is
bipartisan support in Congress for extending those policies without
offsets. Now, very frankly, I would vote for offsets; but we have seen
that that does not happen in the United States Senate; and there is an
inclination not to do it here. A PAYGO bill that does not exempt them
would have to be waived again and again, turning the cause of fiscal
discipline into an empty promise.
I find it much more sensible to make a fiscal discipline promise we
can keep. I would also note that the exemptions in the House
legislation are narrower than those sent to us in the President's
original proposal. Most notably, they only apply to the middle-class
tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and not to tax cuts generally.
Mr. Speaker, pay as you go cannot remove us from our deficit hole in
a single stroke, nor will it. That will take much hard work. PAYGO is
not enough in and of itself, but it is absolutely necessary because it
keeps us from digging the hole any deeper. It is tested and proven. We
adopted this policy in a bipartisan way in 1990. We reaffirmed that
policy in a bipartisan vote in 1997, with Speaker Gingrich and
President Clinton reaching agreement on that proposition. Yes, it's
tested and proven, as I said. I hope that all of my colleagues,
Democrats and Republicans alike, will support it when it comes to the
House floor later this week.

____________________

RUSHING INTO A HEALTH CARE PLAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I don't have the time to respond to
the majority leader's comments about PAYGO. But I would just simply say
that the Democrats passed a PAYGO policy when they first took over, and
we're getting deeper and deeper into debt. If that's what PAYGO does,
then woe be unto us if we sign on to it.
The President, the Speaker and the majority leader are all in a rush
to pass legislation here. So much in a rush, they will not even give
Members a chance to read the bills. Why is that? It's perhaps because
they don't want people to know what's in the bills. But the American
people want to get health reform right, not just fast. Artificial
deadlines for passing legislation serve a political purpose, not a
legitimate purpose. I have promised that I will not vote for any health
care legislation that is not publicly available in its final form for
at least 72 hours in advance of a vote. Every Member of Congress should
have time to read the health care bill they are asked to vote on, and
the American people should be given this same common courtesy. Let's
give them significant time to fully understand the details of a health
care proposal rather than steamrolling partisan legislation through
Congress. We should make August a national health care awareness month
so that Americans can let their Member of Congress know where they
stand before voting because we already know of many problems in the
proposals that are being put forward. Number one, the bill contains
zero savings from eliminating or even reducing waste, fraud and abuse.
In an attempt to correct this egregious lack of oversight, Ways and
Means Republicans offered six amendments during the committee's markup
to reduce wasteful spending. All of them were rejected by the
Democrats.
We know that the House Democrats' health care plan will increase
Federal spending significantly, that coming directly from the CBO,
appointed by the Democrats. We know that it's going to raise taxes on
small businesses through surtax increases. Of taxpayers who file in the
top brackets, more than half of them are small businesses. The Democrat
plan, according to a study by the Tax Foundation, would raise the top
tax rate in 39 States to more than 50 percent.

{time} 1045

Significantly, it includes fines of up to $500,000 on employers who
make an honest mistake thinking they had provided what the government
deemed ``sufficient'' coverage. It will impose an 8 percent payroll tax
on employers who can't afford to offer health insurance to their
employees, and on employers who do the right thing and offer health
coverage to their employees but it is deemed insufficient by the
government, and employers who are not paying at least 72.5 percent of
an employee's premium or 65 percent for family coverage.
What they plan to do is take over more aspects of our life. Every
piece of legislation that is passing out of this House this session is
aimed at putting the government more in control of our lives and giving
us less freedom. The health care bill is the worst of those. Cap-and-
tax was horrible; this is even more horrible.
We must not rush into passing health care legislation. We must slow
down and get things right. The American people are hurting. We know
they are hurting. Unemployment is going up dramatically under this
Congress and under this President, and we need to be dealing with what
we can do to create jobs and help individual families, not make things
worse by killing more jobs and raising taxes. That's what PAYGO does.
It is hard to make cuts in spending, easy to raise taxes, and that's
what they plan to do. We shouldn't let them fool the American people
again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have
got to stop letting the Democrats do these things, rushing bills
through, hiding things in obscure language, and taxing us into high
unemployment in this country.

____________________

RESTORE STATUTORY PAYGO

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
South Dakota (Ms. Herseth Sandlin) for 5 minutes.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the co-chairman of
the Blue Dog Coalition which has long advocated for restoring statutory
PAYGO as an important budgetary tool necessary to impose discipline in
both chambers of Congress as it regards the collection and use of
taxpayer money. I would like to thank the majority leader, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his strong, steadfast, and
unquestioned support for statutory PAYGO and for his words earlier this
morning in support of this important legislation.
As I stated and as the majority leader has, this is an important
budget tool

[[Page 18472]]

to impose discipline. It is a tested and proven tool from the 1990s
that again, as has been mentioned, President Clinton and former Speaker
Newt Gingrich agreed to back in the 1990s. I think it is imperative
that opponents of this legislation explain more clearly why they lived
with PAYGO with little or no complaint in the last decade, and the
surpluses aided by such disciplines, and why they abandoned such
discipline which led to a doubling of the national debt over the last 8
years.
We need to make priorities and tough decisions so as to ensure
fairness to future generations. It is essential to adopt statutory
PAYGO as one step, among many others, to ensure both economic and
national security. It is not fair to future generations for the United
States to in any way be beholden to foreign creditors. The interest on
the national debt alone is more than we spend on education and veterans
combined.
Statutory PAYGO is necessary to impose discipline in both Chambers.
One of the earlier speakers mentioned that since adopting PAYGO in the
House rules, that the deficits have worsened. Unfortunately, much of
the legislation passed out of this Chamber that abides by House rules
for PAYGO come back to this Chamber after action in the Senate that
strips how we pay for our priorities. That's why again reinstating
PAYGO as a budgetary tool in statute is necessary for both the House
and the Senate, and fortunately is supported by the current
administration.
So, Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to ask the hard questions about what worked in the 1990s to
produce budget surpluses, about what didn't work over the past 8 years
to result in a national debt, a record national debt, and what tools
are necessary to get us back on the path of fiscal discipline and
surpluses once again. Statutory PAYGO is one key, one tool, among
others, that will lead to the kind of tough decisions and priorities
necessary to restore the fiscal health of the country.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today at a time of a
great moment in the life of this country. The American people are
hurting. We are facing in this country the worst recession in a quarter
century. We have lost 2 million jobs since this Congress and this
administration enacted a stimulus bill. The unemployment rate at the
time we passed the stimulus bill was 7.5 percent. We were told that we
had to spend that nearly $800 billion, borrowed from future generations
of Americans, so the unemployment rate wouldn't go over 8 percent. It
is now 9.5 percent and rising.
We saw this Democratic majority pass a budget that will double the
national debt in 5 years and triple it in 10, and that's if the economy
starts to grow again, which sadly, few economists believe it will in
the near future.
Now this summer we saw this majority, in the name of global warming,
pass a national energy tax that will essentially raise the cost of
energy for businesses and individuals by thousands of dollars per year.
And now comes health care reform, a government takeover of health
care in this country financed with nearly a trillion dollars in tax
increases. Yet my colleagues, many of whom I deeply respect, come to
the floor this week to talk about something called PAYGO, fiscal
discipline. Well, the truth is that in this majority and this
administration, PAYGO means you pay and they go on spending.
The truth is we have got to come to terms with these difficult times.
We have got to begin to demonstrate the priorities that businesses and
family farms and working families are demonstrating at this time of
national challenge and economic recession. Families and businesses are
sitting down and prioritizing what should come first.
We ought to have national energy legislation to set us on a pathway
toward energy independence. We ought to have health care reform that
brings real competition into our economy and lowers the cost for
consumers. But the first thing we ought to be doing is coming together
and creating jobs.
We know how to create jobs. John F. Kennedy knew it, Ronald Reagan
knew it, George W. Bush knew it when the towers fell: fiscal discipline
in Washington, D.C., and tax relief for working families, small
businesses, and family farms.
The last thing we need right now is one more massive tax increase,
one more government takeover of one more American industry. What we
need is focus, and we need to prioritize what this Congress is working
on. We ought to be asking what the American people are asking today
with a heavy heart as they look at Washington, D.C.: Where are the
jobs?
Health care, energy independence, other priorities, other talking
points on Capitol Hill are not going to get the American people back to
work. Congress should come together, men and women of goodwill and
strong principle, and work in such a way that can restore this economy,
and then work in a bipartisan way on the other major issues facing our
country, so help us God.

____________________

RESTORE STATUTORY PAYGO

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko) for 5 minutes.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, the House will be taking up H.R. 2920 this
week, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, otherwise known as
PAYGO.
This bill, sponsored by our majority leader, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), will renew our commitment to fiscal
responsibility and protect core democratic values.
As the President said less than 2 months ago, the pay-as-you-go rule
is very simple: Congress can only spend a dollar in one place if it
saves a dollar in another. Just as families cut back on eating out at
restaurants to pay for a new amenity, so too must Congress make
difficult balancing decisions.
In fact, this rule was put in place when the country saw record
deficits turn into record surpluses during the 1990s. It is no surprise
to learn that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record
deficits that in turn doubled our national debt.
PAYGO legislation will reestablish this requirement that turned
deficits into surpluses under the Clinton administration.
It is also critically important to pass PAYGO to ensure our fiscal
health and stability as Congress considers health care reform
legislation, a necessary item. We must be able to pay for this reform
without unduly burdening our American taxpayers. To understand this
critically important PAYGO legislation and the record deficits this
country is facing, we must understand how we got here. We must move
toward a more balanced budget which will initiate an era of fiscal
responsibility and a stronger long term fiscal position. PAYGO is an
important and critical piece of legislation in that process.
First, a number of factors have brought us to this cash-strapped
position. Under the previous administration, the PAYGO principle was
abandoned, reckless tax cuts were passed for the wealthy and two wars
were funded outside of the budget process. On top of that, our economy
has seen one of the most severe recessions since the Great Depression.
Congressional efforts to get the economy moving again have proven to be
fairly effective thus far, but they have come at a price.
Understanding these problems and the long term fiscal restraints,
what does the PAYGO legislation do? It will require that all new
policies reducing revenues or expanding entitlement spending enacted
during a session of Congress be offset over 5 and 10 years. As Congress
did in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, PAYGO will include
an exemption for legislation designated as an emergency.
PAYGO will require any future extension of upper income tax cuts to
be offset, as well as force a serious examination of wasteful subsidies
in the budget and tax loopholes that can be eliminated to benefit more
worthwhile programs. This means that PAYGO

[[Page 18473]]

will force advocates of tax cuts to acknowledge the costs and show how
they will be paid for, as well as ensuring that we can afford to fund
America's most important priorities consistently for future
generations.
Certain exemptions on discretionary programs funded in the
appropriations process will be granted under PAYGO. These programs are
the low income home energy assistance program, our Head Start program,
Pell grants, the special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children, and housing assistance.
PAYGO will also establish an enforcement mechanism in nonexempt
mandatory programs at the end of year if Congress has not already paid
for the cost of all legislation enacted during that given year.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a priority for the President. He
understands, as we do, that we must balance short-term deficit spending
for economic recovery with a commitment to restoring fiscal discipline
in the long term. The large deficits that we inherited as a result of
the reckless borrow-and-spend policies of the previous administration
have put pressure on funding for important priorities such as health
care, education and clean energy jobs. We must ensure that regardless
of who is in power, PAYGO will be a powerful impediment to reckless tax
cuts financed by debt.
Mr. Speaker, the people of our country elect us to come to Washington
to represent them in the best way that we can. After years of
unrestrained spending, budget gimmicks and rampant waste, as well as
fraud and abuse in Federal spending, it is clear we cannot continue
along that same fiscal path. We are in a deep fiscal hole. However,
with the right tools, including a statutory PAYGO budgeting process, we
can reverse this dangerous trend and begin to put the country back on a
fiscally sustainable path.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I support H.R. 2920 and encourage our
colleagues to do the same.

____________________

{time} 1100
FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM UNDER THE GROWING FED: A RECIPE FOR TOTAL
GOVERNMENT CONTROL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to address the critical
issue of regulatory reform in our financial markets. In 1912, a year
before he became President, Woodrow Wilson ominously stated ``waiting
to be solved lurks the great question of banking reform.'' So here we
are almost 100 years later, and we are facing the same lurking
question.
The Treasury Department recently issued an 85-page white paper
containing five main objectives for reforming or financial markets.
Although a few of these objectives may sound good on paper, the devil
is always in the details. A closer look at this new plan reveals a
fundamental change to our financial system and economy that will stifle
the innovation and competition fostered by the traditional American
free enterprise system, giving way to a future of Big Government
propping up all companies that are ``too big to fail.''
Specifically, the Obama financial regulatory reform plan calls for
ceding the Federal Reserve a vast amount of additional authority with
the power to create new requirements for capital and liquidity and for
any firm ``whose combination of size, leverage, and interconnectedness
could pose a threat to financial stability if it fails.'' The Fed,
which has failed in the past as a regulator, will be allowed to oversee
almost all aspects of any financial company in the United States and
its foreign affiliates. Specifically, the Fed will be able to regulate,
lend to and close down companies not normally under their control if
they deem them to be a danger to the economy.
My colleagues, this is total government control. Additionally, the
Treasury will be given more powers as well, such as the ability to
appoint a conservator or receiver to ``stabilize'' any large financial
firm that is failing, any large financial firm. This will be done in
lieu of bankruptcy proceedings, and the result will almost certainly
lead to those ``too big to fail'' institutions, backed by the United
States Government, having the upper hand in the market, particularly
when it comes to raising funds, and smaller competitors will be forced
out down the line. Thus, we are destined for an economy dominated by
what essentially are government-backed entities, like the Fannie Maes
and Freddie Macs.
Big government backed by an all-powerful Federal Reserve isn't the
answer to our financial problems. We cannot erode the components of our
free market economy because we are afraid to let the market work. It
will devastate the innovation and competition that has traditionally
driven the American economy.
Another issue worth mentioning when discussing regulatory reform of
financial markets is the issue of transparency and possible conflicts
of interest. Bill Gross of Pimco, a private financial institution that
manages the world's largest mutual fund, is heavily involved in the
mortgage securities market and is an open proponent of the Treasury's
public-private investment program. Interestingly, in the spring of
2008, Pimco actually presented a plan in Washington, D.C. for a public-
private partnership, very similar to the plan that Geithner came out
with this year. Pimco is now hoping to be one of the companies that the
Treasury picks to help buy up some of the $1.25 trillion in mortgage
bonds that have sank big institutions like Bank of America and
Citicorp.
In addition, the Federal Reserve has also looked to Pimco to
specifically ask for advice on which banks needed more taxpayer TARP
funds to stay afloat. Pimco's close relationship with the Treasury and
the Fed should not allow it to be the beneficiary of billions of
dollars gained through Federal contracts and preferential investment
opportunities, particularly with Geithner's public-private investment
program he has proposed.
Mr. Speaker, a free market is an economic system in which
individuals, rather than the government, make the majority decisions
regarding economic activities. In a free-market economy, the
government's function is limited, and it should act in a way as an
umpire and issue regulatory procedures. The Obama financial regulatory
reform plan will move us away from our free-market system and towards a
future where the free market is negated by government over-involvement
in the private financial sector. We are moving toward a system of
permanent interdependence of big companies' reliance on big government.
This is fundamentally un-American, and the long-term consequences of
such a plan are dire.
Let's not make Washington, D.C. the bailout capital of the world for
every private company in America. Let those companies suffer the
consequences for their risky actions. Instead, let's be good stewards
of taxpayer dollars, keeping in mind that more regulation doesn't mean
better regulation and a powerful Federal Reserve isn't the answer to
all of our financial problems.

____________________

BLUE DOGS ENDORSE PAY-AS-YOU-GO LEGISLATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Boyd) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the pay-as-you-go
legislation that the House will be considering later this week. This is
a bill that the Blue Dogs and I have endorsed for the last several
Congresses. It is a priority of this President and of the House
leadership and of more than 165 cosponsors of this legislation. I'm
always intrigued by those who would oppose PAYGO, like my friend, Mr.
Pence from Indiana, who spoke earlier that basically criticized the
deficit spending that has occurred, I assume that he would be critical
of that in the last previous administration and this administration,
but yet he seems to oppose the one tool that we have that has proven to
control deficit spending.
The principle is simple, Mr. Speaker. If you have new spending
programs,

[[Page 18474]]

then you have to pay for them. It is very simple. PAYGO was one of the
tools that led this country in the 1990s to record surpluses. However,
that tool, PAYGO, and others that were in place, were allowed to expire
under President Bush and the Republican leadership of this body in
2002.
Those who claim that PAYGO didn't work need simply to look at the
numbers. When it was on the books, we had balanced budgets and even
record surpluses. But after it was allowed to expire, we saw the
explosion of new spending programs and spiraling deficits to go along
with it. By putting PAYGO back into law, we will get back on the path
toward fiscal responsibility and long-term sustainability.
It is no secret by anybody that works in this place and now even out
in the country, that we have an unsustainable budget picture looking
forward. When you have a budget hole, Mr. Speaker, the first rule of
thumb, the first rule you need to follow is stop digging. PAYGO does
that by ensuring that new programs that are enacted must be paid for.
We owe it to our children and to their children to stop digging this
hole deeper.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this PAYGO
legislation in order to return to fiscal discipline.

____________________

PAYGO WILL BRING ABOUT FISCAL DISCIPLINE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch) for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I'm here, too, to join in advocacy for the
PAYGO legislation that is going to come before the House floor this
week. PAYGO is what it sounds like. If we have a new program, we have
to find a way to pay for it, either through cuts or revenues. If we
have a proposed tax cut, we have to find a way to pay for it, either in
a reduction in programs elsewhere or a shifting of priorities and
spending.
It is a very simple, elemental approach. If you're going to buy
something, you have to pay for it. Families know it, in their family
budgets, they have to do it all of the time. And government really is
no different. It is no different because in the end, if we borrow
money, at some point we are going to have to pay it back. We have
gotten into a habit in this Congress of not paying for things, in some
cases, expenditure programs, and in other cases tax cuts.
We have had some back and forth this morning with our friends on the
other side of the aisle, and without getting into the blame game, which
doesn't get us anywhere, there is an irrefutable fact, and that is that
in the past 8 years with the tax cuts, with Medicare part D that was
not funded, with a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan on the credit
card, we have gone from the largest surplus in the history of this
country to the largest deficit in the history of this country.
What it means is that our kids and our grandkids are the ones who are
going to have to pick up the tab. Aside from the fact that that is
obviously unfair and none of us wants to pass the burden of debt for
our spending on to others, it really is going to restrict what it is
that generation can do to meet its own challenges to educate its kids,
to provide health care to its kids and themselves and to provide for
the national defense.
We have the capacity to impose on ourselves the same rule that
families have to impose on themselves every month when they sit around
the kitchen table and go over their checkbook and try to figure out
how, at the end of the month, they are going to make the checkbook
balance. And that is to accept the burden of the discipline of paying
for our tax cut proposal or our spending proposal when we make the
proposal.
Voters know that. They want fiscal responsibility. In fact, their
concern about the deficit rightly is at the top of their agenda. We
have had extraordinary circumstances here that have required
extraordinary actions with the economy going off the cliff, with the
stimulus spending and with the legacy of a war in Iraq and Afghanistan
on the credit card.
We have restored truth in budgeting so that those two things, the
wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, are now on the budget. So it is painful
because we are seeing in black and white what the cost of those
enterprises are, and we know that we are going to have to pay for them.
We are not trying to hide it. We are being direct.
The American people are entitled to that candor, and they are
entitled to have us respond by making certain that we, going forward,
adopt pay-as-you-go principles. It is not just good in theory, and it
is not just good for conservatives or liberals. It is good for
everybody.
I'm a big supporter, I think most of us are, that in this country we
achieve the goal of having all of our citizens covered by health care.
Every citizen should be covered and have access to health insurance.
Every citizen should help pay for it. And if you lose your job, you
shouldn't lose your health care. The President has acknowledged that as
worthy as that goal is, we must pay for it. And the health care bill
that we are now considering has to be paid for. What a difference from
what happened with the prescription drug program that was largely put
on the credit card and it is not able to sustain itself or pay for
itself.
One of the reasons it is so important to have PAYGO is that it
imposes the discipline on us to kick the tires of a program. Health
care is a great example. We need it. We have good health care in this
country. But the cost is going up at two or three times the rate of
inflation, two or three times the rate of profit growth, two or three
times the rate of wage growth. So people are falling behind. The middle
class is getting squeezed. They are facing higher co-pays and
deductibles. By adopting PAYGO, it is forcing us to look at our
delivery system and ask yourselves how can we reform the delivery of
health care to make it more efficient and provide more value for less
money?
In fact, there are examples after examples of how we have, in many
cases, excess utilization. So this bill is going to be helpful to all
of us. And it is very important that we pass this legislation.

____________________

GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE WILL LEAD TO RATIONING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, right now Americans all across the country
are dealing with this tough economy, many by tightening their belts and
by managing their family budgets. Unfortunately, they are looking to
Washington, and they are seeing this Congress that is being run by
people that don't get what the American people are dealing with across
the country.
Spending is out of control here in Washington by this administration
and by this Congress. Look at the proposals that we are debating today.
Health care in America needs reforms. But with all of the problems that
exist, we still have some of the best medical care in the world. In
fact, people that live in countries that have a government-run plan and
who have the means, come to America to get care because in those
countries, government takeover of health care has led directly to
rationing of care. And so what are we facing today? We are facing a
plan by the President, Speaker Pelosi and others here to have a
government takeover of America's health care system.
When you read this bill, and you hear all of this great rhetoric, you
hear the President saying that if you like the plan you have, you can
keep it. The problem is, the bill doesn't allow you to keep your health
care plan. There is actually a section in their government takeover
that allows a health care czar, some bureaucrat in Washington that was
never elected to anything, to be able to take away your health care if
they don't think that it complies with these new Federal requirements.
So if you like what you have, this health care czar can take it away
from you.
In fact, if you're uninsured--and all we hear about is the uninsured
and

[[Page 18475]]

that we need to address the problem of the uninsured, and I agree. The
thing is when you really break down the numbers and when you look at
who is really uninsured, you get to a number of about 7 million people.
Once you strip away the illegal aliens and you take away the people who
choose not to get health care who are currently eligible, you end up
with 7 million Americans. That is a number we can address without
blowing up all of the things that work for over 300 million Americans.

{time} 1115

But in their plan, they actually tax some of those very people that
are uninsured.
The Congressional Budget Office just gave testimony last week.
Unfortunately the chairman of the committee threw the public out of the
meeting. It was a secretive meeting that they wouldn't even allow the
public to come into. I guess after they heard the testimony, you can
see why, because the testimony said, number one, that the costs in this
bill are out of control. All of the savings that we heard, that were
promised, don't even exist. That's the Congressional Budget Office's
testimony.
But then they talked about the taxes, over $580 billion in new taxes
on businesses in their health care bill. There's over $240 billion of
penalties that would be applied to American families that maybe don't
go along with this new government takeover of health care. There's $29
billion of taxes on uninsured people in their bill. The Congressional
Budget Office gave the specific testimony that this bill, this
government takeover of health care, adds $29 billion in new taxes on
the backs of uninsured Americans. And this is as they're running around
saying that they want to help uninsured Americans. I know a lot of
uninsured Americans out there that don't think $29 billion of new taxes
on their backs is the kind of help that they want. When you look at
this bill, you start to realize that what they're doing, what they're
proposing, is the very government takeover where rationing of care
would exist, where a government bureaucrat can get in between the
relationship of you and your doctor. It's the same thing that's
happened in Canada, it's the same thing that's happened in England,
where unfortunately just yesterday we saw the story of a 22-year-old
who was denied lifesaving care, denied a transplant by this government
bureaucracy that exists in England that rations care.
I serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee where this bill is
currently being debated. We were in committee till 12:30 in the morning
last night. We had an amendment that would have prohibited a Federal
bureaucrat in Washington from interfering between the relationship of
an American citizen and their doctor. That's the most sacrosanct
relationship that should exist. Nobody should come between the
relationship between you and your doctor. Yet they voted down that
amendment. So clearly this is about rationing. Their proposal is not
about reforming health care, because there's bipartisan agreement on
the reforms that need to be made to address the real problems that
exist in health care. What their bill is about is a government
takeover. It's growing government more. It's adding more to the Federal
deficit. Hundreds of billions of dollars by CBO testimony would be
added to the Federal deficit, at a time when Americans are saying,
Congress, Washington, control spending. Get a grip. People saw that the
stimulus didn't work. There are no jobs.
This bill is a horrible idea. Government should not be taking over
our health care system and interfering in the relationship between us
and our doctor.

____________________

MAKING STATUTORY PAYGO A REALITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Melancon) for 5 minutes.
Mr. MELANCON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If we do not begin paying our bills today, we will continue to short-
change future generations who face higher taxes and cuts to Federal
investments in priorities such as education, health care and national
security. In order to ensure our long-term fiscal sustainability, we
must all work together and return to the proven, effective pay-as-you-
go rules that brought our Federal budget to balance in the 1990s.
We now have a President who is committed to changing the fiscal
course of this country. Together, we are committed to putting an end to
the reckless fiscal policies and out-of-control spending of the past
that has given us the record deficits we see today. To that end, the
President has charged Congress with passing statutory PAYGO, and we
have an obligation to see that this critical piece of legislation
reaches his desk for signing.
Our Federal Government simply cannot continue to live beyond its
means, mortgaging our future on the backs of our children and our
grandchildren. Reinstituting statutory PAYGO will send a message to the
American people that their government is serious about putting the
country back on stable economic footing. The time to act is now. The
President has put his words into action and I look forward to working
with the Blue Dogs and my colleagues in the House and the Senate to
make statutory PAYGO a reality again in this country.

____________________

HEALTH CARE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for 5 minutes.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, American families and small business
owners are struggling with high health care costs. They're also
struggling with access to a doctor; getting to see a doctor and
establishing a relationship with that doctor so that you can really
lead a healthier life-style, building the kind of trust that's
necessary so that the doctor knows the patient and knows what it's
going to take to lead them along a healthier pathway and having the
patient trust the doctor so that the advice that they're being given is
something that they will adhere to. American families are struggling,
small business owners are struggling, and we have to do something about
this.
Republicans believe we should reform health care, but we need to do
it responsibly and in a very, very thoughtful way so as to not disrupt
the system that we currently have. If you have health insurance that
you like that leads to a relationship with a doctor, you can keep it.
But we don't want to see a system completely devastated or disrupted.
We want to build off of what works.
I am a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, and we worked on
the bill in the House which outlines the President's plan; and that
bill doesn't do near enough to provide good, accessible health care.
Furthermore, it's a very expensive bill. The Congressional Budget
Office has just started looking at this and it's seeing a very
expensive bill that's going to add significantly to the deficit.
As a physician who has practiced medicine for over 20 years, I look
at this and I say, whoa, wait a minute, let's get this right. It's more
important to get it right than to rush into something and do it very
hastily and cause disruption in the health care system where we have
some things that are working. One of the speakers earlier mentioned the
fact that we've got in fact in effect the finest health care in the
world. We've got the most highly trained doctors and nurses. We have
people from all over the world coming here to train. We have those who
live in other countries who come here to get their health care. But we
have a cost problem, we have an insurance problem, and we need to fix
that, and we need to make sure that insurance coverage is meaningful
and really leads to access to a doctor for every American.
Republicans have ideas on how to do this. It incorporates three basic
principles: Information for you to make decisions for your family or
for your small business, to make cost comparisons, to create
transparency, information among physicians so that we don't

[[Page 18476]]

duplicate tests and run up the costs. These are all important things.
Information is very important throughout the system and we believe that
we can incorporate this in a very cost-effective way.
Secondly, choice. Americans want choices. They like to shop. Let's
give Americans a wide range of choices to meet their family needs or
their small business needs in health care. If we do that, that will
create competition and that will start to drive the costs down of
health insurance premiums which we're all struggling with. It will make
it more affordable and we'll get more people on it. We can address the
uninsured by targeting our response as one of the previous speakers
said.
Finally, we need to put families back in control of their health care
destiny. There should be nothing between the doctor and the patient in
this. That's the essence of good, high quality health care, and that's
the only way we're going to control the cost ultimately, by fostering
and strengthening that doctor-patient relationship and making it
something that every American has. That's how we'll fix health care.
Republicans have those ideas and many more and we'll be glad to share
them as this debate goes further with the American public.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE ADULT EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) for 5 minutes.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you as a member of the
Education and Labor Committee. It is a pleasure to stand before you
today to speak about the Adult Education and Economic Growth Act of
2009, known as H.R. 3238, legislation that my friend and colleague
Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island and I introduced on
Thursday, July 16, 2009.
As we all know, our Nation is facing one of the most difficult
economic times in history. Technology and globalization, coupled with
the economic recession, are causing low-wage and low-skilled workers to
become particularly vulnerable. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, unemployment among individuals with less than a high school
diploma has risen from 7\1/2\ percent in December of 2007 to almost 15
percent in April 2009. The unemployment rate for high school graduates
with no college degree has increased from 4.6 percent to 9.3 percent.
Currently, the U.S. ranks 11th among OECD countries in the percent of
young adults with a high school diploma. We should be especially
concerned that we are the only country in which younger adults are less
educated than the previous generation. More than 40 million adults
across our country have basic skills needs or limited proficiency in
English that keep them from participating fully in work, in family and
community activities.
In 2007, more than 25 million adults ages 18 to 64 had no high school
credential. In 2006, 18,400,000 adults spoke English less than ``very
well'' according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In my congressional
district alone, there are 154,000 adults without a high school diploma.
In addition, another 444,000 adults speak a language other than English
or do not speak English ``very well.'' In Texas, we have 3.8 million
adults who do not have a high school diploma. This is unacceptable. We
must do much more to educate our adult learners and assist them in
acquiring the 21st century skills they need to succeed in the
workplace.
In my conversations with business leaders in my congressional
district and across the country, they have shared their desire for a
highly educated and trained workforce. Employers need highly skilled
workers to compete globally, particularly in high-growth industries and
occupations such as health care.
Despite these alarming statistics and realities, we have not made
adequate investments in our adult education delivery system. Our adult
education and workforce training delivery systems are in great need of
reform. In many States, thousands of adult learners are experiencing
long waiting lists for adult literacy services to increase their basic
literacy skills or improve their English skills. More than 77 percent
of community-based literacy programs currently report waiting lists.
Current funding reaches only 2.8 million of these adults each year and
thousands more are on those waiting lists that I mentioned for adult
literacy services.
A report issued this month by the President's Council on Economic
Advisers, Preparing the Workers of Today for the Jobs of Tomorrow,
underscores that our modern economy requires workers with higher skills
and the need to employ workers with education and training beyond the
high school level.
In closing, I want to say that the report identifies key limitations
to our education and training system, including low completion rates,
limited accountability, poor coordination among different programs and
excessive bureaucratic restrictions on the use of training funds.
If we are to remain competitive in the global economy, we must invest
in high quality adult education and workforce training programs that
lead to family-sustaining jobs in careers with the promise of
advancement and postsecondary education.
Mr. Speaker, I invite Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle
to sign on as cosponsors to this legislation.
The ``Adult Education and Economic Growth Act,'' H.R. 3238,
strengthens our adult education and workforce training systems,
increases economic growth in local communities and supports President
Obama's call to once again lead the world college degrees by 2020.
This legislation provides adult learners with greater access to
obtain basic literacy or workplace skills, including English as a
Second Language. This bill assists adults in gaining admission to job
training programs and postsecondary education.
This legislation provides adequate resources for innovative
educational and workforce programs, so that states can bridge the gap
between adult education and occupational skills training. Our adult
learners will be better served by having access to integrated
approaches to education and workforce training.
This legislation expands access by ensuring that federal funding
formulas accurately take into account the adult education and workforce
skills needs of individual states, including the number of adults who
are limited English proficient.
This legislation increases access to adult education, literacy, and
workplace skills through the use of technology.
This legislation increases access to correctional educational
programs and provides added accountability in the system.
This legislation invests in lower skilled workers by providing
employers with a tax credit.
We must reform our adult education and workforce delivery systems if
we are to provide adults with the educational opportunities and 21st
century skills needed to acquire family-sustaining wages and remain
globally competitive.

____________________

JOB CREATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) for 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to express the deepest concern for the fact that
unemployment rates have risen to 13.7 percent in the Inland Empire.
There are those who believe that the solution to almost every problem
facing America involves more government spending here in Washington. I
am committed to the fact that just the opposite is the case. We must do
everything that we possibly can to create a taxing system that
encourages private sector growth.
The sooner we get back to the point of creating job opportunities in
the private sector and recognizing that growth of government for the
sake of government is not the answer, the sooner we will solve this
problem. The jobs for San Bernardino and Riverside County lie in the
private sector. So let's create an environment of opportunity and hope
for those who are looking for jobs for the future.

____________________

COMBATING ADULT ILLITERACY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for 3 minutes.

[[Page 18477]]

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my good friend and
colleague, Chairman Ruben Hinojosa, for his work on this issue of adult
illiteracy which he just spoke about.
Just like Ruben Hinojosa and his district in Texas, in my State of
Rhode Island where unemployment rates continue to rise, 23 percent of
the adult population in my district alone lacks a high school diploma.
Last June when the National Commission on Adult Literacy released its
report, it served as a wake-up call for all those concerned with the
quality of our adult workforce. The commission found that 80 to 90
million adults in this country have deficiencies in basic education and
that our investments in adult education and training were reaching less
than 3 percent of those who need it. That's why we need to ensure that
our adult education and workforce training programs have the tools and
resources they need to prepare our workers for the next generation of
jobs in energy, in health care and in technology. We need to improve
the way we deliver adult education and workforce training programs and
the way we provide career paths to higher growth fields through greater
involvement with business leaders, State agencies and adult education
community and workforce leaders. We need to better leverage employers
to provide educational programs to their employees. We need to enhance
the use of technology to improve quality learning access and delivery
of adult education, literacy and workplace skills services.
The Adult Education and Economic Growth Act which Ruben Hinojosa and
I are introducing will do all of these things in order to provide those
employed and unemployed with the ability to attain the skills they need
to compete in an ever-changing workplace.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

The Adult Education and Economic Growth (AEEG) Act of 2009

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO

1. Will refocus the adult education and workforce skills
system to make postsecondary and job training readiness a
primary goal.
85 percent of GED graduates have to take at least one
remedial course before they can enroll in postsecondary
education. We need to do a better job preparing them for
success in school and in work, rather than getting them to an
arbitrary finish line that actually leaves them short of
where they need to be.
2. Will give incumbent workers greater access to the
workforce skills training and adult education systems.
It is too hard for people already on the job to receive
workforce skills training and adult education. It's not
enough to get someone into a job, we need to get them into a
career. That means continued training, even after a worker is
on the job.
Only 3 to 4 percent of the workers with the most limited
literacy proficiencies receive basic skills training from
their employers. Our bill will create greater incentives for
employer involvement in the education of their employees.
3. Will ensure that federal funding formulas accurately
take into account the adult education and workforce skills
needs of individual states.
Federal funding formulas are outdated, and especially
penalize states with a high proportion of non-native English
speakers. Our legislation will ensure a fairer distribution
of federal funds.
4. Will increase the use of technology in workforce skills
training and adult education.
Technology has greatly increased our ability to reach
workers at times and places convenient to them. By 2006, 73
percent of American adults were online, including those at
the lowest literacy levels. We cannot reach all of those
needing services without deploying technology to provide
services outside the classroom walls.
5. Will increase access to correction education programs
and provide for added accountability in the system.
Offenders with education and training are statistically
less likely to commit crimes after release. There is a direct
correlation between education level and recidivism: the
higher the education level, the lower the recidivism rate. A
decrease in recidivism reduces costs to taxpayers and keeps
our communities safer.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess until noon today.
Accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 33 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess until noon.

____________________

{time} 1200
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Holden) at noon.

____________________

PRAYER

The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following
prayer:
God of mercy and goodness, may this midday moment of prayer and
dedication be received as a welcome gift by all, refreshing Your people
and clarifying our purpose in serving this Nation.
Bless the work that Congress has begun this day. Rectify any defects
and strengthen its integrity. Let us finish the tasks You set before us
in a way that pleases You and gives glory to this Nation and Your Holy
Name, both now and 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 his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Paulsen) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. PAULSEN 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.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate has passed a bill and a concurrent resolution of the
following titles in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 951. An act to authorize the President, in conjunction
with the 40th anniversary of the historic and first lunar
landing by humans in 1969, to award gold medals on behalf of
the United States Congress to Neil A. Armstrong, the first
human to walk on the moon; Edwin E. ``Buzz'' Aldrin, Jr., the
pilot of the lunar module and second person to walk on the
moon; Michael Collins, the pilot of their Apollo 11 mission's
command module; and, the first American to orbit the Earth,
John Herschel Glenn, Jr.
S. Con. Res. 11. Concurrent resolution condemning all forms
of anti-Semitism and reaffirming the support of Congress for
the mandate of the special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-
Semitism, and for other purposes.

____________________

IN SUPPORT OF STATUTORY PAYGO

(Mr. WILSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. I rise today in strong support of statutory pay-
as-you-go legislation, which will be taken up this week by the House.
This bill demonstrates our commitment to fiscal responsibility and will
restore the policy that led us from deficit spending to debt to
surpluses.
We have to reduce our deficit spending. If we don't, we will not be
able to invest in vitally important priorities like health care,
education, and clean energy.
PAYGO is very simple: All the policies that cut taxes or reduce
revenues must be paid for or offset over 5 and 10 years. All policies
that expand entitlement spending must be paid for over 5 and 10 years.
Discretionary spending is not subject to PAYGO, and exceptions could be
made for emergencies.
This makes common sense and families live by it every day. If you
spend more in one area of the family budget, you have got to cut back
in other areas. It's about time that our government start living by the
same rule.

[[Page 18478]]

____________________

DON'T TAX EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYMENT

(Mr. BOEHNER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I ran a small
business. And in that small business I offered a health insurance
benefit to my employees. I offered a pension benefit to my employees.
Both of these plans were as a result of a 1974 Federal law called
ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, that allows
employers to offer health plans to their employees and pension plans to
their employees across State lines.
Over the years, employers now provide health insurance to their
employees, to the total of about 132 million Americans that today get
their health insurance through their employer.
But in the Democrat health care plan, I noticed this morning in an
article from The Wall Street Journal there's a provision in there that,
in their bill, after 5 years all employer plans will have to be
approved by the Department of Labor and the new Health Choices
Commissioner, who will set Federal standards for what is an acceptable
health plan.
Now, these employers are providing these plans to their employees.
They're trying to provide a benefit their employees want and need. And
now the Federal Government is going to decide what your health plan is
going to look like.
I would suggest that a lot of employers in America are going to look
at this and decide, You know, this really isn't worth it. Under their
plan, if you're an employer and you don't provide health insurance, you
have to pay an 8 percent payroll tax to the Federal Government. Eight
percent.
Now, most employers probably pay more than this for their health
care. And so, as a result, I would think a lot of employers are just
going to pay the 8 percent tax and allow their employees to be shoved
into the government-run plan.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, some 23 million
Americans would lose their benefits from their employers and be forced
into government health care. According to the Lewin Group, 114 million
Americans would be forced into the government plan.
This is not what the American people want. And if you put an 8
percent tax on payroll, guess what? Employers are going to hire less
people. And most of my constituents are asking, Where are the jobs? And
if you tax employment through this health care plan or you tax
employment under this crazy national energy tax, you're going to create
less jobs in America.
At a time when we need jobs and we need our economy going again, we
don't need to be taxing employers and taxing employment, because we're
going to get a lot less of it.

____________________

SUPPORT PASSAGE OF STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO

(Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act. This commonsense measure will help bring
fiscal responsibility back to Washington. With the national debt at
almost $11.6 trillion, Congress needs to start showing some discipline.
I launched my ``Do More With Less'' campaign to cut inefficient
spending and reduce the debt. I have been proud to support billions of
cuts in the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills. And I have called on
the Treasury Secretary to use returned bailout funds to pay back what
we owe.
I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the PAYGO bill. By
requiring that Congress offset spending dollar-for-dollar, this
legislation will ensure that Washington makes the tough choices it
takes to get our country back on track.
PAYGO helped produce the budget surpluses of the late 1990s, and it
will help us restore the balance now.
I urge my colleagues to stand with me and support passage of this
bill.

____________________

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

(Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, at a time when millions of Americans are
losing their jobs and families are desperately seeking employment, this
Congress and this administration have made job creation a secondary
concern. As a result, they have squandered a golden opportunity to put
people back to work.
Frankly, the American people have just had enough. They have had
enough of a stimulus bill that has wasted hundreds of billions of
dollars and not staved off job loss. They have had enough of the
national energy tax that will impose extraordinary job-killing taxes on
the people of this country. And now, Mr. Speaker, they have had enough
of talk of a health care bill that not only will fail to deliver the
access and quality that we need, but it will cripple small businesses
by imposing an 8 percent payroll tax on them.
Mr. Speaker, the question is: Where are the jobs? Congress and this
administration have been asleep for too long--and we can do better.

____________________

SUPPORT THE HEALTH CARE PLAN

(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. America's health system is not working. We cannot stay with
the failing system that we now have. What good is an insurance card if
there's no real access to services? What good is the current system if
I have a senior under Medicare, like in my district, scared that their
doctors won't see them any more?
We also need a health care reform that gets past the politics and
past the rhetoric that every single person is covered.
I stand here to advocate for those without a voice, for those who
cannot afford to travel to Washington, D.C. I stand here to advocate
for a viable public option to compete with the private sector.
I stand here to advocate for American families. And I stand for the
American families who are busting at the seams, trying to make ends
meet, and hoping one day they won't get sick.
I urge my colleagues to advocate for all American families and pass
health care reform that is needed for all American people in this
country.

____________________

WE CAN AND MUST DO BETTER

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. In the midst of the worst recession in 25 years, after
months of runaway Federal spending, bailout, record deficits, and a
national energy tax, now comes a government takeover of health care
paid for with nearly a trillion dollars in tax increases.
Before we move on to the next big government scheme of this
administration, the American people are asking, Mr. President, where
are the jobs?
Make no mistake about it, the President's health care bill would do
nothing to lower the cost of health care and would be a disaster for
the American economy. If ObamaCare passes--according to the experts--if
ObamaCare passes, you will probably lose your health insurance and you
might just lose your job.
The American people know we can do better. We must do better. For the
sake of our economy and reform, I implore my Democratic colleagues, say
``no'' to a government takeover of health care and higher taxes and say
``yes'' to a bipartisan majority in this Congress that is committed to
fiscal discipline, reform, and putting Americans back to work.

____________________

REINSTITUTE PAYGO

(Mr. CHILDERS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CHILDERS. It's a privilege to come to this House floor today to
express my steadfast support for pay-as-

[[Page 18479]]

you-go legislation that is scheduled to be introduced this week. As a
member of the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, I believe
reinstituting PAYGO is vital to restoring confidence with the American
people that Washington and this Congress are indeed serious about
reducing the Federal deficit and not continuing the reckless spending
policies so often associated with Washington over the past decade.
The people of north Mississippi and the American people all
understand that at some point the bills have to be paid. Going from a
$5 trillion debt at the end of the Clinton administration to a now over
$11 trillion debt, it is not hard to imagine the daily frustrations I
see every weekend at home on the faces of individuals and families
struggling in this economic downturn.
It is time for Congress to start operating just as the families in my
district do and adopt statutory PAYGO as the law of the land.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this landmark
legislation.

____________________

HEALTH CARE WITHOUT RAISING TAXES AND COSTING JOBS

(Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. We can have health care reform without raising
taxes and costing jobs. The health care version currently being debated
in Congress is recognized and called by many as a prescription for
disaster--disaster as it relates to ensuring quality and affordable
health care and disaster as to the impact it would have on our economy.
Governors across the country, Republicans and Democrats, are fearful
it would only add additional costs to an already unsustainable system.
The Mayo Clinic says this bill misses the opportunity to help create
higher quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, they
say it will do the opposite.
CBO last week stated that it would worsen our economic outlook by
increasing deficits and driving our Nation more deeply into debt.
There are many reasons to be skeptical of this plan: the job loss,
the additional debt, the government intrusion between you and your
doctor and your health care decisions.
Some continue to say, It's better than nothing. When you are sick or
your son or daughter is sick, you don't want the doctor just to do
something. You want them to do the right thing.

____________________

{time} 1215
HEALTH CARE SCARE TACTICS WILL NOT WORK

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, 15 years ago Frank Luntz wrote the
speeches for Newt Gingrich to come out here and scare the American
people about the Clinton health reform. They succeeded 15 years ago.
What have the people gotten since then? Nothing. The number of people
have gone up and up and up and up who do not have health insurance. So
here they are all arrayed out here again today one at a time. Folks,
they are here to scare you again. Mr. Speaker, the people are smarter
this time.
In the election of 2008, they elected a President who said he would
bring health care reform to this country, and they gave the Democrats
an overwhelming majority because they are tired of the fear machine.
Now I know you all have your talking points. Frank Luntz pulled them
out of the drawer, shined them up for 2008 and said, Hey, boys, here's
the speech that worked in 1994. Use it again. It won't work, Mr.
Speaker. The people want health care reform, and we're going to give it
to them.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. CARTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, the lady on television said, ``Where's the
beef?'' The American people are now saying, ``Where's the jobs?'' One
of the things that the President promised was jobs for this country.
The Speaker said, It's about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, but the national
unemployment is 9.5 percent, and in the Midwest it's in double digits.
Are those the jobs?
Yes, the Democrats have given us some jobs. They've given us this
cap-and-tax bill which is going to stick a tax collector in everybody's
pocket, destroy small businesses, and destroy jobs in the country.
They've given us 33 czars at $170,000 a year to reward their cronies
who helped them get elected up here by creating new jobs in Washington
for them.
Last night the Energy and Commerce Committee voted to put a
bureaucrat between a doctor and his patient to tell him how he's going
to treat that sick person. That's a new job they want to create.
They've got this idea that if they throw enough money to ACORN, they're
going to create jobs for ACORN--if they can keep the indictments away
from them. These are not jobs.

____________________

THE IMPROVING JOB MARKET

(Mr. PERLMUTTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friends wanting to talk
about jobs. They have the arguments that they want to pursue, but they
don't want to let the facts get in the way of their argument. Let's
start with the report we received today from the Federal Reserve.
We know that jobs fell off a cliff last fall and earlier this year as
part of the Bush administration's efforts for jobs. Private nonfarm
employment fell by 670,000 jobs on average per the month from January
to April, but declines slowed to 312,000 in May and 415,000 in June.
The May and June declines in construction jobs were the smallest since
last fall.
Job declines and temporary employment applications slowed noticeably,
and employment in nonbusiness services turned up in May and increased
further in June. That's why we have the stock market going up. That's
why consumer confidence is going up is because this is working, even if
my friends' arguments are not working.

____________________

JOBLESSNESS IS NOT JUST A TALKING POINT

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this ain't a talking point. Last night I
talked to one of my constituents. This man is an unemployed truck
driver. His statement to me was a very clear one: Where are the jobs?
Where are the jobs?
He said, You guys back there in Washington have put together a so-
called stimulus bill that cost me--he's still a taxpayer--$1 trillion,
and now you plan to take over the entire health care system in this
country? He said, It would be devastating. I am looking for a job as a
truck driver again, and with what you've done on cap-and-trade, it's
going to undermine my ability to do that.
The message is loud and clear. It's not coming from anyone putting
together talking points, Mr. Speaker. It's coming from the American
people to Democrats and Republicans alike in this Congress. Where are
the jobs?

____________________

GOVERNMENT MUST RUN USING PAYGO PRINCIPLES

(Mr. MINNICK asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. MINNICK. Mr. Speaker, today Congress will consider a law
requiring us to do what every other American taxpayer must do with its
family finances, something very simple and very basic, pay for what we
spend.
Ten years ago, thinking somehow it didn't need outside fiscal
discipline, Congress abandoned this commonsense approach, wasted our
budget surpluses, and went on a spending frenzy, doubling our national
debt. Now we face

[[Page 18480]]

the largest budget deficit in our Nation's history.
Our government cannot continue to borrow and spend, create ever-
higher levels of debt, and pass along the costs of paying for it to our
children and grandchildren. We are now relying on trillions of dollars
of money borrowed from China and Middle Eastern oil states to pay our
bills. This can't continue.
It's time we grow up, act like responsible adults and return to
fiscal sanity. With this measure, any new spending we pass must be
deficit-neutral. This is the long overdue essential first step towards
a return to fiscal responsibility that will assure our creditors and
demonstrate to the American public that we deserve to govern.
I salute my Blue Dog colleagues for their persistence on bringing
this critical issue to a vote. I urge my colleagues to support this
simple, commonsense bill.

____________________

WE MUST WORK TOGETHER TO STOP THE UNEMPLOYMENT

(Mr. McCARTHY of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, this morning I opened up my
hometown paper, The Bakersfield Californian. On the front page of the
local section there is an article, Kern County's unemployment rate for
the month of June increased to 14.7 percent. If that's a talking point,
it's coming directly from the paper. One year ago the unemployment rate
was 9 percent.
The American people know that if Americans are not working, America
is not working. My constituents ask me, Is this Obama economy going to
improve? They continue to ask me, If you take more from what people
earn, for the energy tax every time you turn on a light, when you go to
health care, taxing, are you taking away the choice?
But I tell them there is a chance for a better way. There is a better
way to work together to focus on small business. Small business creates
70 percent of every job in America. We can do better by working
together and stopping the unemployment.

____________________

CONGRATULATING THE FRIENDSHIP MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH IN ROSWELL, NEW
MEXICO

(Mr. TEAGUE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Friendship
Missionary Baptist Church in Roswell, New Mexico. This year the church
will be celebrating 47 years of service to the Roswell community. The
Friendship Missionary Baptist Church has been dedicated to the faith
and well-being of the people of Roswell for nearly a half a century.
I would like to especially honor the current serving pastor, Rev.
Michael K. Shelton, and the church's former pastor, the Rev. O.C. King,
and his wife for 28 years of faithful leadership to the church and the
Roswell community.
Churches like Friendship Baptist achieve such great distinction
because of the hard work, dedication, and compassion of their
congregation. The leaders of the church and their staff are also to be
commended for their guidance.
Friendship Missionary Baptist Church has been and will remain a place
for fellowship and a source of hope for the people of southern New
Mexico. I am honored to have churches like Friendship Missionary
Baptist Church in my district, and I commend them on their years of
service.

____________________

FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD ENROLL IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM

(Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, would a government takeover of health care
create jobs? The answer is clearly no. We should be focused on job one
right now, which is find the jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, if the Energy and
Commerce Committee had continued to work today, I would have introduced
an amendment to require all Federal elected officials, including the
President and Vice President, to set aside our health care benefits and
enroll in their new idea of a government-run health care system.
If the majority is really so confident that their plan will provide
the very best health care to the people we represent, we ought to
demonstrate that confidence by enrolling ourselves. I, for one, don't
believe the government-run health care plan will be the best for the
people we represent, but a government competitor will soon be the only
one left.
A government competitor, Mr. Speaker, would be like an elephant in a
room full of mice. The fast mice can get out of the room as quick as
they can. The slow mice get crushed, and only the elephant is left. It
is time we put our health care where we want the American health care
to be, Mr. Speaker, but it's also time we find the jobs.

____________________

THE BENEFITS OF HEALTH CARE REFORM FOR ALL AMERICANS

(Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because we really
are on the verge of finalizing groundbreaking health care reform
legislation that will benefit healthier generations to come and the 250
million of us who have health care but who are tired of skyrocketing
premiums and deductibles.
Did your salary go up 114 percent this last decade? It sure didn't,
but that's what happened with premiums and deductibles. This is about
real reform, not for insurance companies and their bean counters, but
for the American people.
I want to emphasize today the importance of including a robust public
plan option, relying on the Medicare provider network in the final
reform bill. Providing Americans with a real choice in doctors and
insurance plans puts Americans back in charge of their health care, not
insurance companies, but real people and patients.
I would say that for those who believe in the free market, why are
you afraid of a public plan? Why are you afraid of something that
competes?
Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for us to do health care reform to
lower costs, to make it affordable, and to benefit those of us who have
health care to lower our deductibles and our premiums.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE PROMISED JOBS?

(Mr. POE of Texas asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is in double
digits around this country. Some States have the highest unemployment
rate in history. The economy is bleeding jobs because the trillion-
dollar stimulus bill was a jobs disaster bill.
Jobs, jobs, jobs, that's all we heard from the taxacrats as they
jammed that bill through Congress. They didn't give anybody a chance to
read it. They sure didn't want Members of Congress to read it. The
American people didn't get to read it, and they have to suffer the
consequences.
But the stimulus bill did help one city, however. Washington, D.C.,
has the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Now, how can that be?
Well, the stimulus bill stimulated government programs funded at
taxpayer expense. These aren't real jobs. Government doesn't create
anything. All they do is suck money out of a private economy that could
create real jobs.
The bureaucrats created more jobs for red tape regulating bureaucrats
and forced citizens to subsidize it. All the trillion-dollar stimulus
bill did was spend taxpayer money to create more government
regulations, more government control, and more government bureaucrats.
That's too bad.
And that's just the way it is.

[[Page 18481]]

____________________

THE COST OF HEALTH CARE INACTION IS TOO GREAT

(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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to dispel the myth
that health care reform will suddenly move the burden of paying for the
uninsured onto the rest of us. All Americans are already paying the
high costs of a broken health care system with 47 million Americans
uninsured.
The cost of caring for the uninsured gets passed on to all of us. The
average American family is currently paying more than $1,000 every year
to support the uninsured. This $1,000 fee is buried deep in every
premium and pays for the broken health care system.
Health care costs are soaring out of control. Premiums have doubled
in 9 years, growing three times faster than wages. These staggering
prices are too high for American families. Members of Congress must
come together to address the problem for the health of middle class
Americans and the health of their wallets. The cost of inaction is just
too great to sit back and do nothing.

____________________

GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE WILL COST MORE JOBS

(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have painted a
target on the backs of America's small businesses. As unemployment
rises, 2.6 million jobs have been lost since January. Democrats
continue to propose policies that will kill jobs.
First there was cap-and-tax, which will skyrocket electric bills, gas
prices and food prices, and make American businesses less competitive.
Now they have a government-run health care full of tax hikes and
mandates on small businesses, which the NFIB estimates will cost 1.6
million more jobs lost.
Small businesses create the majority of jobs in this country. They
are doing the best they can in this tough economy, but all they hear
from Democrats is pay higher taxes. Democrats should stop feeding Big
Government and start providing relief to small businesses.
Where are the jobs? We need health care reforms that help more
Americans regardless of their preexisting conditions, help small
businesses provide insurance for their employees, and keep in place an
innovative side of our health care system.
In conclusion, God bless our troops and we will never forget
September the 11th in the global war on terrorism.

____________________

{time} 1230
DO YOU FEEL LUCKY?

(Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. You've heard the commercial: Don't support
government health care.
So the question that you need to ask yourself then is, Do I feel
lucky? Do I feel lucky that I won't be one of the 14,000 people a day
who lose their jobs and can't afford health insurance, that I won't
have such a high deductible that I avoid preventive care and end up
with end-stage cancer because I didn't go to the doctor. Well, am I
lucky?
Do I feel lucky that Junior won't break a bone and I end up in the
emergency room with a $5,000 bill? Do I feel lucky that I won't go
bankrupt from my health care problems? Do I feel lucky that I won't
have some preexisting condition that prevents me from getting a new
job? Do I feel lucky that my health care premium won't grow three times
faster than my salary?
The American economy is in the intensive care unit. The disease is
the high cost of health care, and the medicine is health care reform.

____________________

RISING UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

(Mr. PAULSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, last week my home State of Minnesota saw
the unemployment rate rise once again, while seeing its exports drop by
almost 20 percent from just 1 year ago.
The number one priority of this Congress and this administration
should be job creation. But it's clear that the economic stimulus
policies being pursued in Washington are failing. Congress has missed
important opportunities to pursue real policies that will put
Minnesotans and Americans back to work.
Instead, we've seen reckless spending and reckless borrowing at
unprecedented rates, so much so that the fact now is that every man,
woman and child in our country owes over $37,000 as their share of the
national debt.
Mr. Speaker, we should be reforming health care without throwing even
more new taxes on the backs of families and small businesses, and we
should be giving priority to helping small businesses, our number one
job creators, to put Minnesotans and Americans back to work.

____________________

APOLLO MOON LANDING IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ST. LOUIS PRIDE

(Mr. CARNAHAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Science and Technology
Committee, I rise today to remember the 40th anniversary of the Apollo
Moon landing and the deep sense of pride it gave our Nation.
I, like all Americans, watched with amazement as Neil Armstrong
declared: ``That's one small step for man, one giant leap for
mankind.'' That moment demonstrates the magnitude of American know-how,
ingenuity, innovation and our ability to rise to a great challenge.
My home city of St. Louis, Missouri, was instrumental in the success
of that Moon mission, serving as home to then-McDonnell Douglas, which
manufactured components for the third-stage booster rocket for Saturn
V. That third-stage booster rocket launched those brave astronauts into
lunar orbit, making the historic journey possible.
Now it's time to lead the world once again in innovation and science
technology, especially as we transition to a new clean energy economy.
Americans are ready to be called to action for a great challenge again.

____________________

HEALTH CARE REFORM A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER

(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, when the economic stimulus plan
was passed earlier this year, the American people were told that we had
to act immediately because of our economic crisis. We were also told
that that plan would create or save 3 million jobs and that the
unemployment rate would not rise above 8 percent, and that we had to
act so fast that actually not one Member of this House or the American
people had a chance to read the bill.
And what has actually happened since that time?
Well, the economy hasn't gained 3 million jobs. It's actually lost 3
million jobs. Where are the jobs?
Unemployment is almost 10 percent. In my home State of Michigan, it
is 15.2 percent today, and $787 billion has been added to our national
debt and we have an annual deficit approaching $2 trillion.
Mr. Speaker, now we're being told that we need to pass health care
reform immediately because we're in a crisis. We're told that it will
be deficit neutral because it includes massive new taxes on individuals
and small businesses. But CBO says that it will actually increase the
deficit, Mr. Speaker, while others say that it will force millions of
Americans out of their private health insurance.

[[Page 18482]]

We do need to reform our health care system, but doing it in such a
panic mode is a recipe for disaster.

____________________

EMPLOYER MANDATE HARDSHIP

(Mr. REICHERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, our economy is struggling, and
unemployment is near 10 percent. Yet the health care proposal being
considered in Congress asks our job creators, the small businesses of
America across this country, to pay a new 8 percent tax.
Last week, in the Ways and Means Committee, I proposed to exempt
small businesses from this penalty tax if it would result in businesses
having to lay off workers, cut wages, or reduce jobs.
America's businesses are hurting, and we're asking them to pay more
taxes? Yet, my amendment was rejected. Requiring small businesses to
pay a penalty tax is no way to help them stay in business and create
jobs. American workers will be harmed. Workers will bear the new cost
through lost jobs and smaller wages.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. Americans need the
confidence that their jobs are not in jeopardy, that we are working to
protect and strengthen their health care, while supporting the small
businesses that create jobs.
And these aren't speaking points. That's just some straight shooting
from the sheriff.

____________________

STABILIZING OUR ECONOMY

(Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, President Barack Obama's chief
of staff, Rahm Emanuel, reflected on the administration's lack of focus
on the economy earlier this year when he said that our Nation's
financial crisis presented an opportunity to accomplish agendas
unrelated to the economy.
A good example of that was the so-called stimulus bill that had
nothing to do with helping to save or create jobs in the private
sector, but everything to do with expanding government programs and
pushing our Nation $787 billion deeper into debt.
The Obama administration and the Congress should be focused on one
issue and only one issue, and that is stabilizing our Nation's economy
so that Americans can keep the jobs they have and get back the jobs
they lost. Only when the economy is stabilized should we be debating
other issues such as energy policy and health care reform.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting, and it's time that our
President and the Democrats in Congress stop ignoring their pain and
get to work on fixing this economy.

____________________

WASHINGTON IS OUT OF TOUCH

(Mr. LEE of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. LEE of New York. It amazes me how out of touch we are in
Washington. For months now, my constituents in western New York have
been asking, where are the jobs, any jobs?
Well, according to this chart of job postings, we found out where
they are: right here in Washington, D.C., as we continue to hire
thousands of Federal bureaucrats. It's one of the only cities that's
growing, and all for the wrong reasons.
It's appalling that we're continuing to grow the Federal Government
while we're running a deficit of $1.18 trillion.
When I ran a business, you always had a budget, and you lived within
it.
When you look around D.C., you see construction cranes all around the
skyline. It's because we can't construct enough buildings to house all
these Federal bureaucrats that we're now hiring when we have this
deficit.
We have to stop this excessive spending and work together to create
the right jobs in the right sectors.

____________________

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE

(Ms. SPEIER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, the enemies of health reform have scoured
all of Canada to find a story that fits with their message of ``no
change, no reform.''
But I only have to look to my district, to Sharon Almeida from San
Bruno, who sent me this letter titled, ``What's Wrong With This
Picture?''
Each month Sharon and her husband, Frank, net $3,811 from Social
Security and pensions. But they pay out nearly $2,800 for Sharon's
cancer treatments. That leaves them just $1,000 for food, utilities,
gas, insurance, never mind a little something for the grandchildren.
Thank God they own their own home and no longer have a mortgage.
Mr. Speaker, Sharon and Frank worked hard. They played by the rules
and raised a beautiful and supportive family. They do not deserve this.
So, to the critics of reform, I say, let the Canadians worry about
the Canadians. It's time we come together to provide real health care
reform for Sharon and other hardworking Americans.

____________________

TROUBLE IN CAPITAL CITY

(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. Mr. Speaker, trouble, oh, we got
trouble right here in Capital City. With a capital T, and it rhymes
with B and that stands for Broke. Right here in Capital City, right
here, we've gotta figure out a way to help the Americans we're about to
choke.
You've got trouble right here in Capital City. With a capital T, and
that rhymes with D and that stands for debt. Right here in Capital City
we've got trouble. Remember the millions, the billions, the trillions.
And don't you forget, we've got trouble. We're in terrible, terrible
trouble. The game of some 256 Members is a devil's bet. Oh, yes, we've
got trouble, trouble. Trouble with a T. It rhymes with D, and it stands
for Democrat.

____________________

HEALTH CARE

(Mr. BROWN of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it's time for commonsense
health care reform that will strengthen free enterprise, lower cost and
expand access to affordable quality care.
Unfortunately, at a cost of $1.28 trillion, Democrats wish to create
a new government program that will unwillingly force more than 100
million people out of their current coverage, increase taxes by $818
billion, and cut 4.7 million jobs.
According to CBO, this legislation would also increase the Federal
deficit by $239 billion over 10 years and, as a result, would ration
care, force doctors out of the profession and hospitals out of
business, and ultimately provide fewer options and longer waits for
patients.
Locally, new health mandates in South Carolina, a State already in
financial crisis, would create more unbudgeted costs and reduce funding
for other important issues in the State.
Spending so much and accomplishing so little, a government takeover
of health care is the wrong direction for all Americans. Republicans
have a better plan that expands access to affordable health care and
allows families to choose the plan that best fits their needs.

____________________

CUT TAXES AND CREATE JOBS

(Mr. CULBERSON asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, Continental Airlines, one of the largest
employers in Houston, has just laid off 1,700 people. And my friend,
Mr. Chris Lee of New York, has put together an inspired chart that
shows clearly what this liberal leadership of this House

[[Page 18483]]

and this Congress are doing with our hard-earned tax dollars. They're
redistributing the wealth to Washington, D.C., they're creating jobs in
the government and Washington and out in Nancy Pelosi land, out in San
Francisco and in State capitals across the Nation.
But we fiscal conservatives understand, it's common sense: to create
jobs, you cut taxes; you get lawyers and bureaucrats and regulators off
the backs and out of the pockets of small business people. We need to
cut taxes to create jobs. Do so immediately. We need to cut spending at
the Federal level to reduce the level of debt that our children and
grandchildren are going to have to pay.
The Inspector General for the Treasury has just reported that these
irresponsible bailouts that this liberal majority has passed could cost
taxpayers up to $23.7 trillion on top of the $60 trillion in unfunded
liability that we have already passed on to our kids.
It's time to cut taxes and create jobs and get the government off our
backs and out of our pockets.

____________________

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S SUPPORT FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM IS WANING

(Mr. FLEMING asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Speaker, the more details Americans learn about the
government takeover of health care proposed by the President and the
liberal leadership of Congress, the less support there is for this
insane idea.
A Washington Post-ABC poll shows more than half of this country is
opposed to this plan. Yes, support for this crazy deep dive into
socialism is fading fast.
The nonpartisan CBO says this plan won't reduce the cost as the
President suggested; it will accelerate it. And we know that will kill
jobs.
This liberal Congress rammed the stimulus and cap-and-trade, which
nobody could read before voting, down the throats of the American
people. But they are now fed up and on to their strategy.
We don't want DMV, Department of Motor Vehicles, style medicine with
long waiting lines, delayed care and skyrocketing cancer death rates as
in Canada and the UK. We don't want a system that will bankrupt this
country and ignore the elderly, and we sure don't want our tax money
paying for abortions.
Simply put, we want commonsense health care reform, not nonsense
health care reform as now proposed.

____________________

{time} 1245
A TAX ON HEALTH CARE IS A TAX ON PAYROLL

(Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, at the start of this year, the focus has
been on economy and jobs, number one.
I was chairman of the Florida Chamber 4 years ago. We represented
137,000 businesses, and 99 percent of those businesses were small
business. They create 75 percent of the jobs. Yet, today, we are going
to tax health care. It's not a tax on profit. It's a tax on payroll. If
you've got a $1 million payroll making no money, and if you're paying
another $80,000 a year you don't have, you're going to put people out
of business.
The other thing they want to put together is a surtax of 5.4 percent
on businesses. They want to get to the millionaires. Do you know who
those folks are? They're small business people. You wouldn't know that
if you've never been in business. That's the majority of them. So
you're going to tax the 8 percent. You're going to add another 5.4
percent. You're going to kill millions of businesses, and you're going
to kill millions and millions of more jobs. We need to get focused back
on the economy and on jobs in America today, right now.

____________________

HEALTH CARE REFORM

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker and Members, I serve on the
Energy and Commerce Committee and on the Health Subcommittee. We were
in session last night until 12:30, working on this bill. It was
beginning to be a bipartisan bill. We accepted Republican amendments;
we accepted Democratic amendments, but we have a long way to go. Let me
tell you what the facts are in our country.
Forty-three to fifty million people in our country are without health
care. They get their health care through the emergency rooms. Do you
know who pays for that? Those of us who have insurance, who are
fortunate enough to have employer-based insurance, whether you're a
Federal employee, a State employee, a city employee or whether you work
for some of the large industries. We have insurance, but 43 to 50
million people don't. Our country's employers and employees spend more
per capita than anywhere in the world for some of the worst results for
the average illnesses.
We are going to debate a bill in a few minutes by my colleague from
California, Joe Baca, on the increase in diabetes in the Hispanic
community. Diabetes can be dealt with early on. Our health care system
decides to deal with people after they're so ill that it's more
expensive. We need health care reform in our country for cost
containment but also to make sure that every American doesn't have to
get their health care through the emergency rooms.

____________________

UNEMPLOYMENT

(Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Americans all over this country
are asking: Where are the jobs? We've been promised jobs over and over
by the Obama administration and by the majority in this Congress, but
unemployment numbers continue to rise.
When the President took office, 11.5 million people were unemployed.
Six months later, that number now stands at 14.5 million Americans who
are unemployed and who are looking for work. Where are the jobs?
In February, when the majority rammed through a $1 trillion stimulus
bill with zero input from my Republican colleagues, Americans were
promised that unemployment would remain at 8 percent. Five months
later, unemployment is at 9.6 percent and is climbing. In my home State
of Florida, that number is 10.6 percent, the highest it has been in
three decades. Where are the jobs?
The stimulus bill is not working, and despite what Vice President
Biden says, we can't borrow and spend our way out of this recession.
Instead of spending trillions of dollars on failed programs and on
misled policies, we need to focus on lowering taxes on small businesses
and on families. Again, where are the jobs?

____________________

AMERICAN INNOVATION, NOT REGULATION

(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, the world is looking to us for innovation.
That's the goose that lays the golden egg in our country--our free
enterprise system, entrepreneurship. They are looking and are saying,
American innovation can pull this economy back in a good direction, not
regulation. Other governments are moving away from regulation and high
taxation. We're moving towards it. It's innovation, not regulation.
Look at the new cap-and-trade legislation for energy and the
environment. It's a regulatory scheme. It's a taxation scheme, not an
innovation scheme. Where is nuclear power? Where are the new energy
technologies that

[[Page 18484]]

can lead to a robust, manufacturing-driven, job-creating U.S. economy?
Look at the new health care scheme. It's a regulatory scheme, a
taxation scheme and, frankly, a litigation scheme. It's protecting the
status quo in litigation. The greatest medical centers in America are
saying this government insurance scheme is the wrong approach. We need
less litigation. We need to unleash the entrepreneurship and the
innovation of the United States again so that we can lead.
Where are the jobs? They're in innovation and in entrepreneurship.
They're in our free enterprise system. The government chokes it with
regulation, taxation and litigation.

____________________

A SO-CALLED ``STIMULUS''

(Mr. REHBERG asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Speaker, 5 months after this House passed the so-
called ``stimulus'' that shattered spending records, the economy
struggles, and unemployment is approaching 10 percent. It's important
to remember that Republicans had a different plan for economic
recovery. While we didn't have enough votes to pass it, our solution
relied on American ingenuity and small business, not on stimulating
bigger government by creating government jobs. Our plan would have
produced immediate results by putting tax dollars right back in the
pockets of American taxpayers and of job creators.
Recently, it was reported that someone in the White House sees the
need for another stimulus. Instead of doing the same thing over again
and expecting a different result, perhaps it's time to give Republican
alternatives a serious look. It's not too late to pass a real stimulus
plan.

____________________

THIS CREDIT CARD CONGRESS

(Mr. CHAFFETZ asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep concern about the
families of the United States of America. The economics of this credit
card Congress are not working. Where are the jobs?
We cannot tax and spend our way out of our challenges. I firmly
believe that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats in
Congress are taxing, spending and borrowing too much money. This credit
card Congress has now put us nearly $12 trillion in debt. We are
spending nearly $600 million per day just in interest on that debt.
Bailouts and stimulus money by the billions of dollars are not helping
the average person at home, and now we have a proposal to slam through
a government-run, Chinese-financed health care system that puts a
Washington, D.C., politician between our doctor and my wife.
The tax-and-spend, credit-card-driven, Chinese-financed economics
driven by the Democrats doesn't work. We need fiscal discipline,
limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense. We
need to restore liberty for the American people and for small
businessmen and -women. That's where you'll find the jobs.
Stand up, America. Let your voice be heard. Put a stop to this credit
card Congress.

____________________

DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE REFORM

(Mr. GINGREY of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, one of the American people's
biggest fears about the Democratic health care reform plan is the
prospect of having some government bureaucrat stand between them and
the doctors they trust. I've heard this message time and time again in
townhall meetings, in letters and in phone calls from patients
throughout this country.
The House Democratic leadership has promised the American people that
their fears about the bureaucrat-rationed care they will receive are
unfounded, even while drafting a 1,000-page bill that creates this
Comparative Effectiveness Council to decide which treatments will be
covered.
Late yesterday evening, I gave my colleagues a chance on the Energy
and Commerce Committee to put their money where their mouths were by
offering an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee that would
simply bar Federal political appointees and bureaucrats from
intervening in patient treatment decisions.
An easy vote, Mr. Speaker. Who do you want making your health care
decisions--your doctor or a government bureaucrat? However, every
Democrat on the committee, save one, voted against this amendment.
It's time for Congress to focus on strengthening the doctor-patient
relationship and not the bureaucratic-patient relationship.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, the people in South Alabama and, really, all
across our country want to know: Where are the jobs? Where are the jobs
that were promised by the administration and by the Democratic
leadership of this Congress back in February?
Without a single Republican vote, a $787 billion stimulus bill was
forced on the backs of the taxpayers of our country with one simple
promise: that it would keep unemployment below 8 percent and that it
would create some 3.5 million jobs over the next 2 years. Where are
those jobs? Instead of creating new jobs, almost 2.5 million jobs have
been lost just since the stimulus bill has been passed.
Nationally, the unemployment rate is 9.5 percent, inching up closer
and closer to double digits. In five of the six counties that I
represent in South Alabama, that unemployment rate is already at
double-digit unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, there is a serious lack of credibility in our Nation's
capital. Don't take my word for it. Just listen to the American people.
They want to know: Where are the jobs?

____________________

SUMMERS RELYING ON GOOGLE SEARCHES TO GAUGE RECESSION

(Mr. WESTMORELAND asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, when this administration took over on
January 20, the unemployment was at about 7.2 percent, and they made a
promise that this new stimulus of $787 billion would create or would
save 600,000 jobs. Since that point, we've lost 2 million jobs. Where
are the jobs?
The President's top economic adviser pictured here, Mr. Larry
Summers, has made us all feel better in this country by telling us:
Of all the statistics pouring into the White House every day, top
economic adviser Larry Summers highlighted one Friday to make his case
that the economic free-fall has ended. The number of people searching
for the term ``economic depression'' on Google is down to normal
levels, Summers said. Searches for the term were up fourfold when the
recession deepened in the earlier part of the year, and the recent
shift goes to show consumer confidence is higher, Summers told Peterson
Institute for International Economics.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? I'm telling you that somebody in
this administration is asleep at the wheel.

____________________

JOBS

(Mr. AUSTRIA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. AUSTRIA. Mr. Speaker, the American people are hurting. Millions
of Americans are out of work, and hundreds of thousands continue to
lose their jobs each month. In my home State of Ohio, the unemployment
rate reached 11.1 percent in June, the highest it has been in decades.
According to the Columbus Dispatch, this adds up to an additional
33,000 jobs in Ohio that have been lost during the

[[Page 18485]]

month of June, which is up from 8.8 percent in January 2009. The
Dispatch article goes on to state that, over the course of the past
year, 279,000 Ohioans have lost their jobs, including small businesses,
farmers, as well as 134,000 manufacturing jobs.
At the end of the day, I trust the American people and our small
businesses, the taxpayers, to spend and to invest their own money as
they see fit. That is what will get America back to work.
Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle's economic policies have
this backwards. The government continues to take Americans' tax dollars
and to spend those dollars as they see fit. Not only is that
inefficient and wasteful; it's just flat out wrong. Where are the jobs?
It's time to get Ohio and Americans back to work now.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mrs. SCHMIDT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask a simple question:
Where are the jobs? My constituents, along with those across Ohio and
our Nation are asking: Where are those jobs?
In my home State of Ohio, the unemployment rate has risen to 11.1
percent. We have the seventh-highest rate in the Nation. Every single
county in my district is equal to or is higher than the national
average, and Pike and Scioto Counties are actually above 15 percent,
but that number is rather deceiving. Another large percentage of our
population has either given up looking for work right now or has taken
part-time or temporary work.
People in Ohio and in my district are hurting. We need jobs and we
need them now. Only $6 million of the Department of Transportation
Recovery Act dollars have been spent so far in Ohio. The Recovery and
Reinvestment Act was supposed to provide immediate stimulus to create
new jobs. Where are those jobs? People are hurting. Five months later,
there are no jobs.
I'm asking: Where are the jobs?

____________________

{time} 1300
LOSS OF JOBS HAS GONE OFF A CLIFF

(Mr. ROE of Tennessee asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. ROE of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, with the national unemployment
rate nearing 10 percent and Tennessee's own unemployment rate at over
11 percent, people are outraged that not more is happening in
Washington to help them find work. So far, this Congress has provided
those who find themselves out of work extended benefits, but it
insisted on taxing those benefits. Worse, the majority has not done
enough to stimulate the economy and to produce jobs, the best benefit
of all, which is a job.
Despite all of the promises of a green job revolution and the
millions of jobs that would be saved or created because of the economic
stimulus package, the number of jobs since President Obama took office
has gone off a cliff.
Republicans have called for an immediate end to the tax on
unemployment benefits, which would surely help those who have been hurt
by this recession. We have also called for tax relief for small
businesses who can use that money to create jobs. These measures can
improve our economy immediately.
American small businesses are the most innovative in the world and
will pull us out of this recession if we allow them, but Democrats seem
determined to prevent any recovery from occurring. In the past month,
they moved to bludgeon our economy with a national energy tax and tax
on small business to finance massive new health care entitlements.
Enough is enough. Create jobs.

____________________

JOBS, THE ECONOMY, AND THE FUTURE OF HEALTH CARE

(Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, over 6 months ago, my Democrat colleagues
and the Obama administration told the American people that if we passed
the $1.2 trillion stimulus package, it would create jobs, halt the
growing unemployment rate, and turn our economy around; yet here we are
today with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate--the highest in 26 years--
and a record $1.1 trillion deficit that is growing and expected to be
$2 trillion by year's end.
And yet this administration and Democrats want to push through
another $1.2 trillion health care package, a health care package that,
according to the President's own economic adviser, will result in 4.7
million people losing their jobs.
Just a few weeks ago when talking about the stimulus package, Vice
President Biden said for the Obama administration, Well, we just
guessed wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think that the American people can really afford
for this Congress or this administration to guess wrong again. We need
to make sure that we find the jobs in this country, not tax and spend.

____________________

DEAD WRONG ON HEALTH CARE

(Mr. ROSKAM asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, listen. Listen with me and see if we can
hear the sounds of jobs. Shhh, shhh, shhh, shhh. You gotta listen real
close. Quiet. Well, I'm not hearing anything.
The administration told us in this House months ago that if the
American people stood in favor of the stimulus package that
unemployment would peak at 8 percent, and yet here in Illinois, the
State that I represent, we've now eclipsed 10 percent.
We were told that the cost curve would be broken if only we would
follow the administration's health care plan and it would be the
salvation of small business, and yet the Congressional Budget Office
came into the Ways and Means Committee last week, Mr. Speaker, and said
that was dead wrong.
The question that has to be asked and has to be answered is one that
we've heard no answer today from the other side: Where are the jobs?
There are no jobs. This is an administration that has pumped sunshine
for months and has failed to follow through, and we ought not follow
these brake lights right over the cliff.
We know what we need to do, and that is stand for small business and
vote against this plan.

____________________

BRING HEALTH CARE COSTS DOWN

(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, rising health care costs are a serious
problem, but the Democrat bill being advanced in the House proposes
$1.2 trillion in additional spending on health care coupled with
massive tax increases that would hurt small business and middle class
families.
The Democrat new 8 percent payroll tax will force employers to cut
millions more jobs in the middle of the worst recession in decades
while their surtax would push my State of California's top income tax
rate to over 56 percent, higher than even that of France's. And those
tax hikes won't even cover the full costs of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we need real reform that brings down health care costs
instead of pouring more money into a broken system.

____________________

HEALTH CARE PLAN SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERYBODY

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, on Friday I offered an amendment in the
Appropriations Committee that failed because every Democrat voted
against it. The amendment simply stated that Members of Congress and
the administration should live by the laws they impose on the American
people.

[[Page 18486]]

Specifically, if you vote for a government-run health insurance plan,
you should get a government-run health insurance plan. If it's good
enough to impose health care rationing on the American people, it's
certainly good enough for you. Because it's hypocritical to vote for a
government-run rationed health care plan that will be forced on
everyone else while retaining a private insurance plan for yourself.
If Members don't believe they should have to live under the rationed
health care plan that they're pushing, they should explain why. Kansans
are upset by the possibility that they're forced on a rationed public
health care plan by this Congress. They believe if it's not good enough
for the people who vote for it, it's not good enough for them.
Mr. Speaker, it's time for us to reform health care by addressing
defensive medicine costs, by offering market-based principles for
health care, and by keeping patients and doctors in control, not
Washington bureaucrats.

____________________

HEALTH CARE AND ITS FAULTY PREMISES

(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Well, they certainly
aren't in the Democrats' job-killing health care plan. At a time when
America is suffering the worst recession in a generation, it's utterly
irresponsible to propose a government takeover of our health care
system and destroy millions of private sector jobs in the process.
Since the Democrats passed their stimulus package, more than 2
million American jobs have been lost, and the chair of the White House
Council of Economic Advisors, Dr. Christina Romer, has suggested that
the tax hikes on businesses that will be required to pay for the
Democratic health care plan will result in the loss of an additional
4.7 million jobs.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic proposal will force drastic
cuts in Medicare Advantage, causing millions of seniors to lose their
coverage for prescription medicine, the cost of private health care
will skyrocket, and the Lewin Group has estimated that nearly 114
million Americans will be forced out of their current private health
care coverage and into government-run health care plans.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats' job-killing health care proposal is the
wrong prescription. It will cost millions of jobs. Americans need a
second opinion.

____________________

AMERICANS WANT TO SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THEM, NOT AGAINST THEM

(Mr. LATTA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, the people of the Fifth Congressional
District of the State of Ohio of the United States all want a job. Last
year at this time, the Fifth Congressional District, according to the
National Manufacturers Association, had the ninth largest number of
manufacturing jobs in the country. When the new numbers just came out,
we're down to 15.
When you look at this map of the State of Ohio, looking at Williams,
Fulton, Defiance, Paulding, Crawford, and Huron--those are some of my
counties--when I've got counties over 15 percent, folks back home want
to know what this Congress is doing.
What this Congress passed before we went on the Fourth of July recess
was the national energy tax, the largest tax that we're going to see
that puts businesses out, that puts people out of work, and that's what
we're doing.
People want to know what we're going to do for them, not what we're
doing to them. And I'm telling you that folks back home, when I go home
every weekend, want to know what are we doing. When you look at the
State of Indiana right here, right next to us, they're in as big
trouble as we are.
When the Heritage Foundation came out with their report, of the top
20 congressional districts in the country that had problems under cap-
and-tax, Ohio and Indiana ranked right in the top, 16 out of 20.
We've got to do something. We've got to act right now.

____________________

MORE CREATIVE SOLUTIONS

(Mr. FORTENBERRY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as Congress takes on the essential task
of strengthening America's health care system, we have a choice here to
either rush legislation costing more than $1 trillion or to have a
serious analysis on the fundamental question as to how we actually
improve health care outcomes, reduce costs, and protect vulnerable
persons.
One major consideration should be how any health care proposal will
affect small businesses. Small businesses generate 60 to 80 percent of
all new jobs each year in this country. In my hometown of Lincoln,
Nebraska, 80 percent of those in the private sector are employed in
businesses with 25 or fewer employees.
This current plan would place an 8 percent payroll tax on certain
small businesses who do not or cannot provide government-mandated
coverage.
Mr. Speaker, one study suggests that as many as 4.7 million jobs
could be lost as a direct result of this overall health care proposal.
This does not help anyone.
There are more creative solutions to get people the care they need,
help families manage ever-increasing costs, and help small business
entrepreneurs provide the benefits for their employees.

____________________

{time} 1400
THE RECORD ON JOB CREATION

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. I have been listening to this litany of ``Where are the
jobs?'' I have been here long enough. Mr. Pence, you opposed the
program in 1993. You said it would destroy this economy. You said it
would blow deficits sky high. It created 216,000 jobs per month on
average.
You then supported an economic program in 2001. You said it would be
a haven for jobs and small business and all that. You created not
216,000 jobs per month but 4,240. Those are the figures. I'm sure that
you will all want to come here and say, ``No, Hoyer was wrong on those
figures.''
Under the economic program we propose, 216,000 new jobs every month
on average. Under your program for the last 8 years under the Bush
administration, 4,240 per month. That is a very substantial difference
between 20.8 million new jobs under the economic program that you did
not support in 1993 that we proposed, passed, and President Clinton
signed.
So when you talk about jobs, you ought to talk about the experience
that you've had under our program and your program. You failed. We
succeeded. As a matter of fact, in the last year of the Bush
administration, we lost 3 million-plus jobs. During the last year of
the Clinton administration, we gained 1.9 million jobs. That's a 5
million job turnaround by your economic program.
So keep talking. America knew the difference. America made a
decision. They said what you had been doing was not what they wanted so
they changed. In 2006, they changed the Congress, and in 2008 they
changed the Presidency.
And let me tell you something. We have lost 200,000 less jobs per
month than Bush lost in his last 3 months in office, over the last 3
months. Now, is that where we want to be? It is not. But it is 200,000
better than the last 3 months in your administration. Those are the
facts. Refute them if you can. Keep talking.

____________________

THIS ADMINISTRATION IS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL

(Mr. McCAUL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Leader and Mr. Speaker, where are those jobs? We have
the highest unemployment rate since the 1930s. They say a picture
speaks a thousand words.
Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCAUL. Well, look at this picture.
Mr. HOYER. I thought it was since 1982 when Ronald Reagan was
President.
Mr. McCAUL. Reclaiming my time, they say a picture speaks a thousand
words. Well, look at this picture right here because it says it all.
This is a picture of Larry Summers, the President's top economic
adviser. Look at him. He's not creating jobs. He is asleep. Mr.
Speaker, I would submit to you, this administration is asleep at the
wheel.
The Vice President recently said that we can spend our way out of
bankruptcy. What? Really? Spend our way out of bankruptcy? What
happened to Economics 101? I think the American people are smarter than
that.
Instead of cutting taxes and spending, which has historically worked,
instead, we are enacting policies that will devastate our economy; a
national energy tax that will kill 2.5 million jobs and, according to
the President, skyrocket energy prices. A health care bill that,
according to the CBO, will spend over $1 trillion and kill 4.7 million
jobs.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to wake up.

____________________

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. PENCE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pastor of Arizona). The gentleman from
Indiana will state his inquiry.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully ask, as both I and my
record were directly challenged by the distinguished majority leader on
the floor, and given the fact that I've already utilized my 1 minute
extended during the debate at the opening of this session, when a
Member's record is challenged on the floor of the Congress, does a
Member, under the Rules of the House, have the opportunity to obtain
time when the distinguished majority leader refuses to yield time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only if someone yields to the gentleman.
Mr. PENCE. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, is it proper for a Member to direct an entire
address to another Member of the body as opposed to the Chair or the
Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members must direct their remarks to the
Chair, not to others in the second person.
Mr. PENCE. Further parliamentary inquiry, if I may.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be heard.
Mr. PENCE. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, would it have been in order for
the distinguished majority leader to raise questions about my record
and the positions that I've taken here in the Congress during the
course of my career in the context of floor debate under these rules?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot issue an advisory opinion
on a question of order not timely presented.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Indiana be allowed to address the statement that was
made by the majority leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Has the gentleman from Indiana previously
been recognized for a 1-minute?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Is there a rule that prohibits this body from
agreeing

[[Page 18494]]

to a unanimous consent request to allow a Member to be recognized?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman seeking recognition to
speak for 1 minute?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I am recognized for a parliamentary
inquiry, as I understand it. My parliamentary inquiry is: Does there
exist a rule that prohibits a Member from being recognized to speak
under a unanimous consent request?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a matter of recognition. As the
Chair stated before, if the gentleman has already had a 1-minute, he is
not allowed a second.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair could recognize for a unanimous
consent request that the gentleman from Indiana be allowed to speak out
of order.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from Indiana be allowed to speak out of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would entertain that request from
the gentleman from Indiana.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order
for 2 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order
for 1 minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished majority leader came to the
floor moments ago, and he asked the question that Republicans have been
asking since midday today. It's a question that millions of Americans
are asking, ``Where are the jobs?''
Now the leader--I know it was unintentional--misstated my record,
saying that when I was here in 1993 that I opposed health care reform.
In fact, I was elected to Congress in the year 2000. But it was an
honest mistake and a misstatement of fact, and I acknowledge it.
But can I just suggest, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the millions of
Americans that may be looking in, let's stop looking to the errors of
the past by Democrats or Republicans and let's come together today to
create jobs for the American people.
Republicans are here to say that a government takeover of health
care, financed by $1 trillion in tax increases is a disaster for this
economy. It is unconscionable for this majority and this administration
to insist on the adoption of a government takeover of health care
financed by $1 trillion of tax increases during the worst recession in
25 years.
As the distinguished majority leader just said, Republicans say with
one voice, ``Where are the jobs?''

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. NEUGEBAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Well, Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? That's what
the American people want to know. What they know is the plan that the
Democrats have isn't working, spending money we do not have. Not just a
little bit of money but trillions of dollars that we don't have.
Chairman Bernanke spoke to the House Financial Services Committee
today, and he said: Maintaining the confidence of the public and the
financial markets requires that policy measures begin planning now for
restoration of fiscal balance. Unless we demonstrate a strong
commitment to fiscal sustainability, we will have neither fiscal
financial stability nor doable economic growth.
I'll interpret that for you. If we keep spending money we do not
have, we are not going to create jobs. We are going to lose more jobs.
Last week, the Federal deficit in this country reached $1 trillion.
If you started counting to $1 trillion, it would take you 17,000 years.
We're talking about real money. We cannot continue on this spending
spree that Congress is in, spending money that we do not have.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? The American people want their jobs
back.

____________________

THE FAILED POLICIES OF THE PAST 6 MONTHS SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED

(Mr. ROGERS of Alabama asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? The President
and Speaker Pelosi came to this House early this year and said, if
you'll borrow and spend $1.1 trillion, which is the largest spending
bill in American history, it's going to save existing jobs and create
another 3 million jobs. Well, where are those jobs?
They say, Well, you know, we had to spend that money because we
couldn't go to the failed policies of the past and repeat those. Well,
they would like to rewrite history. But the fact is, in 2003, this
Congress passed one of the largest tax cuts on small businesses in
America in our history, and it was followed by over 50 months of
consecutive job growth, the largest consecutive period of time of
expansion of jobs in American history.
I would suggest to you, the only failed policies of the past that we
shouldn't repeat are the failed policies of the past 6 months.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the leader, where are
the jobs? I listened attentively. I pricked my ears up. I thought I was
going to find out where the jobs are. I didn't hear that answer.
I looked back at what happened for the 108th and 109th Congress.
Members of the Democrats came down on the floor and they said, Just put
us in charge and we'll solve the problem. They won the majority, and we
saw a hockey stick graph going downward of industrial investment.
That's what happened to our economy; it reacted to the Democrat
majority.
You elected President Obama. Now you don't have any excuses, and you
are angry because we are asking, ``Where are the jobs?''
There are 14.5 to 14.7 million unemployed, another 6.8 million that
are simply looking for a job that don't fit into that category, 21.3
million people looking for jobs in the United States, all of this under
Democrat leadership.
We had historically low unemployment and a growing economy because we
lowered taxes, and we kept the pressure off of regulation. You are
turning this into the nationalization of the private sector and the
health insurance industry, and the American people don't want to live
in the kind of countries that exist on the east side of the Atlantic
Ocean or north of the 49th parallel.
Where are the jobs?

____________________

IMPORTANCE OF JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR

(Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I hear a recurring theme about jobs: Where
are they? Who has them? Who doesn't have one?
In a different life, I participate at a needs assessment in a
community that I lived in that went through a process of looking at
what needs were in families, in neighborhoods, and in the community.
Once we distilled that list down to the top 10 needs for this
particular community in Midland, Texas, if you looked at them, out of
all 10 of

[[Page 18495]]

those, nine of those needs would have been positively impacted by a
job.
You cannot overstate the importance of jobs in the private sector,
because when you have jobs in the private sector, individuals are
better, families are better, communities are better, and this Nation,
as a whole, is better.
I can tell you where the jobs aren't. Here is a list of 53 new
boards, commissions, and bureaucracies that are created under the
health care plan that is percolating its way through this system. That
plan will cost 4.7 million private sector jobs, but it will do a good
job of creating additional bureaucrat jobs that don't create wealth and
don't improve the overall economy of this country.
Mr. Speaker, where are those private sector jobs?

____________________

ALABAMA IS SUFFERING FROM A HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, in February, the administration assured us
that if Congress would pass the stimulus bill, then we would see
immediate relief and halt unemployment at 8 percent; yet it is now 9.5
percent on average, and it's rising. But the jobs have yet to appear.
So where are the jobs?
This problem hits home for me because Alabama is suffering from a
greater unemployment rate than the national trend. Mr. Speaker, the
Alabama unemployment rate topped 10 percent in June. It is the highest
level since July of 1984. The June rate of 10.1 percent is up from 9.8
percent in the previous month of May.
At this time last year, Alabama's jobless rate was half that at only
4.6 percent. The current unemployment rate is 10.1 percent. That
represents over 215,000 unemployed Alabamians. The congressional
district that I represent is suffering even more with an unemployment
rate of about 12 percent, and that's on the average.
At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, the
unemployment rate is rising, further evidence that we cannot borrow and
spend our way back to a growing economy.

____________________

{time} 1415
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. KING of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Speaker, 6 months after the Democratic
administration came in with such promise, tens and tens of millions of
Americans are asking, Where are the jobs?
Instead, during the past 6 months we've seen the systematic
mismanaging and dismantling of the American economy. We've seen a
stimulus bill which cost over $1 trillion in new spending with almost
no tax relief for small business, with almost no needed infrastructure,
but again, money on top of money. The President said jobs would come
almost immediately. Instead, the situation gets worse by the week.
We saw a cap-and-tax so-called energy bill which is going to result
in millions of jobs going to China and India.
And now we see a health care bill which will ration medical care, at
the same time, according to the CBO, increase medical costs, the worst
of all worlds.
Mr. Speaker, it's time for the American people to tell this
administration and this Democratic-controlled Congress to work together
in a bipartisan way so we can say, here come the jobs, not seeing the
jobs leave our country, not seeing millions of millions of people being
unemployed because of failed liberal Democrat policies.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. FRANKS of Arizona asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, America is facing an unemployment
and mortgage crisis unlike anything we have seen since the Great
Depression.
Only months ago, President Obama pledged that he would create 3\1/2\
millions jobs by the end of 2010 and told us that the unemployment rate
would stay below 8 percent if we passed the allegedly urgent trillion-
dollar ``economic stimulus'' bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, since the President has assumed office, employment
has dropped by over 2\1/2\ million jobs. We've lost 8 million jobs
since the beginning of the Democrat-led 110th Congress, and half a
million of those were in June alone.
The jobless rate stands at 9.5 percent, and the President himself
admits that it's likely to climb over 10 percent.
This Congress and this administration must be reminded by the
American people that what comprises true economic growth are jobs and
economic productivity by the people. Higher taxes, increased
regulation, reckless spending, bureaucratic selection of economic
winners and losers and out-of-control deficit spending, these are the
Democrat policies of the last five months, and they diminish
productivity instead of encouraging it. They will kill jobs. And unless
we change course, Mr. Speaker, this country faces an unprecedented
economic failure.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. LAMBORN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today troubled about the Democrats'
proposed government takeover of our health care system. The
Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that this legislation will
not reduce costs but, rather, drive health costs up higher for American
families.
In addition to rising costs, according to the White House's chief
economic adviser, Christina Romer, business tax hikes alone could
destroy up to 4.7 million jobs.
Congress should consider free-market and Tax Code reforms to make our
health care system better.
The President and his majority in Congress failed to produce jobs
with the so-called stimulus. Where are the jobs?
Why should we trust them with revising the one-sixth of our economy
based on health care, when their own advisers say it will mean millions
of more jobs lost?

____________________

EMPOWERING PATIENTS

(Mr. CASSIDY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, I actually applaud the goal of our
Democratic colleagues in terms of the health bill they are putting out.
Access, quality, and controlling costs are things that we should all
aspire for. Absolutely.
And I agree with parts of the legislation. Guaranteed access, for
example, is just wonderful. But, of course our concern is that CBO
comment that it's not going to control cost, not achieve one of these
goals, but rather, reset it to increase it. And we know as the cost of
health care increases, that will be one more thing that inhibits growth
and jobs.
So what can we do? One, we do need fundamental reform, which, as the
CBO has pointed out, this bill does provide. We need to put the patient
in charge of health care decisions and dollars. We need to empower
patients to make value-conscious decisions, empower them with the
information they need for reasonable decisions by increasing
transparency on the pricing of health care.
Let's empower them by incentivizing wellness programs at lower costs
and improved lives. Let's empower them with things such as HSAs, which
have been shown to decrease costs by 30 percent and, indeed, give
insurance to those previously uninsured. Empowering patients is the
only way to lower cost and increase access.

[[Page 18496]]

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BACHUS. I just came from a hearing with Chairman Bernanke. There
were some questions he could answer, but others he couldn't answer. We
asked him, Where are the jobs? He couldn't answer that question. He
said unemployment would remain high through 2011. He said he's not sure
that the stimulus created any jobs. It might, but he couldn't answer
that.
He did answer one important question, though; and he was very
certain. He said, if we continue spending like we're spending today,
we're on a rendezvous with financial disaster. He said, and he left no
doubt, that we had to reduce our spending, that the deficit was going
to threaten the prosperity of our Nation, not only our children and our
grandchildren, but today, tomorrow. He said, we have to reduce
spending. He said, spending is out of control. He said, the baby
boomers in the next year or two would overwhelm the Federal budget. He
said, bring down the spending.

____________________

LET'S DO IT RIGHT

(Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, while our Nation is
facing record unemployment, we may well worsen the job situation if the
proposed health care bill passes in its current version; 4.7 million
more jobs are estimated to be lost and a trillion dollars in more
taxes. That's bad medicine.
We still have not addressed the hundreds of billions in health care
waste, but are proposing spending hundreds of billions more. We should
not be substituting the barriers, burdens and, bureaucracy of insurance
companies with the barriers, burdens, and bureaucracy of Uncle Sam's
health insurance company.
I want to get people back to work. I want to make sure they're
covered by health care. I want our Committee on Energy and Commerce to
reconvene to get to work on this bill. It is going to take time. We
need to take the time to fix this. Let's do it right. But let's not
work towards artificial deadlines, and let's get America back to work
with good health care.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I believe in health care reform. I have
been fighting for it since I got here in 1995.
I came to the floor this morning to talk about this amendment. It's
an amendment that was rejected by the Democrats last night. It says
that no Federal employee should be able to dictate how a medical
provider practices medicine. And it was rejected by the Democrats.
Apparently Democrats in their health care bill want Federal employees,
bureaucrats to dictate how your medical provider practices medicine. I
think that's shocking. I don't want a Federal bureaucrat between me and
my doctor or between you and your doctor.
But I got here and discovered that we are not supposed to ask, Where
are the jobs? I don't get it. What's embarrassing about that question?
It's a fair question. Where are the jobs?
When the Obama administration was sworn in, unemployment was 7.6
percent. When the stimulus passed, it was 8.1 percent. And today, it's
9.5 percent. And we're not supposed to ask where are the jobs? I think
it's a legitimate question. I guess it's an embarrassing question. I'd
like to know where the jobs are.

____________________

LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK

(Mr. ELLSWORTH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office, and I heard a
lot of folks asking where the jobs were.
I downloaded an article from the Evansville Courier Press, which
happens to be in Indiana. It says: ``Stimulus has Hoosiers working.''
I'll make a few quotes out of this article: ``More than 2,400 people
are now at work on Federal stimulus-funded roadway projects in Indiana,
according to a state report being released today.''
```Things were slowing down, and the stimulus filled in the gap,'
said Tim Mahoney, an economics professor at the University of Southern
Indiana. `It's kept the people employed that would be laid off,''' says
that same article.
``What's clear is that the stimulus projects have boosted an industry
otherwise floundering in Indiana.''
```In general, it definitely puts our people to work,' said Pete
Bjorkman, the chief estimator for Evansville-based J.H. Rudolph''
construction company.
``Our crews are going to be working more hours and more days because
of this . . . ,' he said. `It is creating more crews, more hours for
our people that wouldn't have been there before.'''
Mr. Speaker, I listened in the office to the stuff being said back
and forth. To the folks in the audience and the people that are walking
out there, Mr. Speaker, they're tired of this crap that's going on back
and forth. We need to work together to put people back to work.

____________________

JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

(Mr. CAO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CAO. Mr. Speaker, the present unemployment rate in the United
States is 9.5 percent and climbing, and the American people are
hurting. Our economic downturn is a challenge that will require prompt
bipartisan action.
As Congress moves forward with the national debate on the economy, it
is imperative that we detract from illogical partisan bickering and
avoid the empty political posturing that got us into this mess in the
first place.
The American people have real problems, and they want real solutions
that require less talk and more action.
I represent a district that is over 60 percent African American, and
I have seen firsthand how this economic slump has disproportionately
hurt minorities more than any other group in the United States. Among
African Americans, the rate of unemployment and uninsured workers is
highest.
While there are a number of options for getting our economy back on
track, it is important to remember that our Nation's proudest
achievements have developed with a bipartisan, solutions-oriented
consensus.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, my friends are asking, Where are the jobs?
It's a good question because we were told in February, when the
stimulus package was passed, that four or five million jobs would be
created. Since then we've lost 1,963,000 jobs.
It's not bad enough that we're not doing anything to create jobs from
the administration's side. But we're actually doing things to kill more
jobs.
I just left a markup for the Education Committee where the majority
is killing a program that has been very successful since 1965, has
helped millions of students go to college and provided an education for
them, and now they're eliminating that program, along with it, 40,000
jobs.
I have constituents at home that are really suffering. They're
asking, Where are the jobs? It's about time you started doing something
to produce them.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. FLAKE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, people are asking, Where are the jobs? And I
think it's an appropriate question to ask.
I myself get a little leery when any administration, any
administration,

[[Page 18497]]

says that they're going to create jobs. They do so for a while, but
government jobs don't last very long, or they shouldn't last very long.
What the administration should do, and this Congress, is create an
environment in which private sector jobs can be created. And that's
what we're not doing with this health care bill. This health care bill
will kill jobs, not create them. It doesn't create an environment where
jobs can be created.
Now, the administration and this Congress say we've got to get to
work. But last week, last Friday we spent an entire day on a welfare-
for-wild-horses bill. There's an old Garth Brooks song that says, wild
horses keep dragging me away. And, apparently, wild horses keep
dragging this Congress away from actually creating an environment where
jobs can be created. And this health care bill goes the wrong
direction.

____________________

{time} 1430
GOVERNMENT IN HEALTH CARE

(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FARR. I hear from the other side that government takes over
health care. I'm just wondering which one of you Members is going to
give up your Navy doctors downstairs to take care of you. Which one of
you is going to give up your Federal health care plan which insures all
the members of your family? Which one of you is going to give up
Medicare for all of your constituents? Which one of you is going to
give up the veterans' care in the veterans' clinics that are in your
districts? Which one of you who loves the military that is doing such a
great job of defending our country in Iraq and in Afghanistan is going
to take away the military TRICARE program?
Yes, government is involved in health care. It sure is. That's what
our country is surviving and living on. Let's make this work and stop
attacking each other.

____________________

A LOT OF TALK ON THE SECOND STIMULUS

(Mr. ROONEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, there has been some talk recently about the
potential of a second stimulus package. Why would we need such a second
stimulus? Because the first one didn't work. It's not rocket science,
and the American people know it.
What the American people don't want to hear is that prior Congresses
or that prior administrations used to do this, or that prior
Congressmen were engaged in this, that or the other. What Americans
want now is leadership and solutions moving forward, not how things
used to be.
I'm new here. I came here because the American people were sick and
tired of the way things used to work. Unemployment will soon reach
double digits, and it already has in my district, the 16th District of
Florida.
The first stimulus didn't work because the Federal Government is not
capable of taking taxpayer money and properly redistributing it. So
let's have a second stimulus package. Let's give tax breaks to small
businesses and to small business owners. Let them hire and keep the
people that they want to work for them. That's the American way.
America works when people make it work, not when the government takes
over.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members--and this is
not directed at the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who just
spoke--that Members should address their remarks to the Chair and not
to others in the second person.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, California unemployment is at 11.6 percent,
and State Democrats in California destroyed the job market and the
manufacturing base there through bureaucratic overregulation,
unrealistic mandates and punitive fees and taxes. Congressional
Democrats here in Washington are following California's lead with the
national energy tax that's going to cost every American family $3,000 a
year and with the job-killing health care plan projected to cost over 4
million jobs.
I've simply come to the easy conclusion that Democrats don't like
small business. I've come to the conclusion that Democrats don't like
jobs. Those of us in California have seen this movie before, and it
ends like ``Thelma and Louise''--with the economy driving off a cliff
in the Grand Canyon. And it's being driven by congressional Democrats.

____________________

GOVERNMENT DOES NOT KNOW BEST WITH REGARD TO HEALTH CARE

(Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C.,
does government know best. My friends on the other side of the aisle
think they know how to create jobs: stimulus I and possibly II, cap-
and-trade, health care reform, higher taxes, more regulation, more
government intervention. The Democrats think this is going to create
wealth and jobs in our economy.
Mr. Speaker, we need to be about the business of overhauling taxes,
of bringing commonsense regulation reform to the people, of giving
people real choice to make decisions for their health care between them
and their doctors. It is about empowering people, not government. What
I'm talking about, Mr. Speaker, is not socialism. It's freedom. With
all that our colleagues on the other side have done, and with all that
they propose to spend, I ask a simple question, Mr. Speaker: Where are
the jobs?

____________________

THE DEMOCRAT SPAGHETTI DINNER OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this chart is not a spaghetti
dinner. It may look like it, but it's the Democrats' health care plan.
If you were a person out in the hinterlands, looking at this, you would
think, How in the world am I going to get health care coverage for me
and for my family if I have to go through all of that? It's going to
cost trillions of dollars--trillions.
In addition to that, there are going to be jobs created, 4.7 million
jobs in China and in India, and their energy bill, cap-and-trade, is
going to create 2.5 million new jobs in India and in China because it's
going to drive jobs offshore because the small businesspeople will not
be able to afford to pay all of these bills and taxes that the
government is creating right now.
The Democrats need to do something. They need to cut taxes and help
the small businessman make a profit and create new jobs. If they do
that, we will have jobs, but right now, we don't know where the jobs
are. Unemployment was supposed to cap at 8 percent. In Indiana, it's
close to 10 percent. It's going to go to 12, 14, 15 percent if they
don't change and change now.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. LUETKEMEYER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Speaker, if we're all real quiet and if we turn
down the rhetoric and if we listen very attentively, I think we can
hear the voices of our constituents back home--the people who pay the
taxes of this country. What are they saying? What question are they
asking? Where are

[[Page 18498]]

the jobs? Where are the jobs, Mr. President? Well, we're not hearing
them, are we?
They've seen the $800 billion stimulus package that was passed
through this House, that was rammed down our throats and that had no
effect. In fact, we've gone the other direction. Instead of increasing
employment, we've gone the other way. We're now at 9.5 percent, headed
towards double digits. What is the solution? A second stimulus is being
talked about. Is that really what we need to do? In this last stimulus,
there was a little bitty piece for small businesses. They're the ones
that generate the jobs. They're the ones that can turn this economy
around. They're the ones that can hire the people. Yet we ignore them.
We turn our backs on them.
Oh, there are those voices again. I think I can hear them. Yes,
they're louder this time. They say, Where are the jobs, Mr. President?
Where are the jobs?

____________________

OBAMA MISERY INDEX

(Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, the chart next to me shows the Obama Misery
Index, OMI, which reveals a stunning rise in debt and in unemployment.
``Oh, my,'' I think, is the right title for the index of current and
future burdens that Americans face.
Despite campaign pledges of fiscal responsibility and of job
creation, since Inauguration Day, we've seen an $800 billion stimulus
bill, massive energy taxes and a legislative agenda that has resulted
in a rapidly growing debt alongside rising unemployment. Taken
together, these figures define the effect of the President's policies
to date, not only revealing their failure to deliver jobs for today's
workers but an even larger government tab for our children and
grandchildren to pay. Already the unemployment and debt on President
Obama's watch is a stunning 40.6 percent--the current Obama Misery
Index actually felt by the American people.
After the Vice President's recent claim that the government needs to
spend more money to keep from going bankrupt and after the CBO,
Congressional Budget Office, Director suggests that the $1 trillion
Democrat health care bill will add to the country's budget problems,
this measure may only worsen in months ahead.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs?

____________________

FUTURE JOB LOSSES AT RURAL HOSPITALS

(Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address
the issue of job loss at rural hospitals if the current health proposal
were to become law. The Democrats' public plan assumes reimbursement
rates based on Medicare.
In the July letter from the Blue Dog Coalition to Speaker Pelosi, the
coalition reported that Medicare reimbursement pays, on average, 20-30
percent lower than private plans. Actual costs are made up through
private insurance reimbursement, which will be gone if the Democratic
plan plays out. This will have a severe negative impact on rural
hospitals, and it will leave us asking: Where are the jobs?
Many providers suffer financial losses as a result of treating
Medicare patients. The lower rates make it more difficult for rural
providers, who serve higher percentages of elderly and low-income
patients. A new public plan with rates similar to Medicare's will
create a financial result that will be unsustainable for even the
Nation's most efficient, high-quality providers. The result is a loss
of good jobs in rural America.
During this time of economic downturn, we need to be focused on the
retention of existing jobs and on encouraging and not discouraging our
rural hospitals.

____________________

FREEDOM OF AMERICANS TO CREATE JOBS

(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, last week, the President visited Michigan.
With an unemployment rate of 15.2 percent, we were hoping that the
President would answer the question: Mr. President, where are the jobs?
When will the jobs come back to Michigan?
We had hoped that the President would have come to Michigan and would
have recognized that raising taxes, that excessive spending and that
more regulation wouldn't work, because that is what we've done in
Michigan. We now have the highest unemployment rate in the country.
Mr. President, take a look at Michigan. Recognize that we need to
reduce taxes, that we need to control spending and that we need to
reduce regulation to get this economy moving.
America and Michigan will begin moving forward again when we empower
its people, not when we empower the bureaucracy and the governments in
Washington or in Lansing. It's about freedom. Give our constituents the
freedom to spend their money to create their jobs.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS?

(Mr. WALDEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to continue this question of:
Where are the jobs?
The gentleman who spoke just before me is from Michigan, where their
unemployment is upwards of 14 percent. Oregon's unemployment rate is
now over 12.2 percent and is second only to Michigan.
Our basic industries have been shut down. My part of the State, by
Federal policy, prevents us from even harvesting burned dead trees in a
timely manner from our Federal forest lands and accessing our
resources. Now along comes legislation that says if you take woody
biomass off Federal land and use it to make new, clean, efficient
energy, if it comes up as certain types of stands, it doesn't count.
It's not renewable. So the jobs that would go with the creation of that
were really diminished or were taken away fully by the cap-and-tax
legislation, which we know is going to cost 1 million or 2 million jobs
in this great State of ours.
I was out in John Day and Nyssa and Burns this weekend and Baker
City. Everywhere I went at town meetings, the rooms were full, and
people were asking, What are they doing to us in Washington? Where are
the jobs?

____________________

CUT TAXES, CONTROL SPENDING, CREATE A COMMONSENSE ENERGY POLICY

(Mr. JORDAN of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the reason our economy is not
creating jobs is that small business owners are asking themselves,
What's coming next out of this place? Always remember this, Mr.
Speaker: The American people are smart. Small business owners are
smart, but they're apprehensive; they're anxious about what's coming
next from this Congress.
Is, in fact, this Congress going to pass cap-and-trade that's going
to raise the cost of energy? Is, in fact, this cost of energy going to
raise taxes? Is this Congress going to federally take over health care
and make health care decisions for every single family and for every
single small business owner out there?
That's why we're not creating jobs. We need to do what we know always
works: cut taxes, get spending under control and enact a commonsense
energy policy.

____________________

CUT TAXES, CREATE JOBS, REBUILD THE ECONOMY

(Mrs. BIGGERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address how this Congress and
this administration are handling the number

[[Page 18499]]

one concern on the minds of Americans today--jobs. Despite promises of
quick action and of immediate returns, hardworking parents in my
district and around the country are still staying up nights, worrying
about whether they will have jobs in the next month, in the next day or
in the next week to provide for their children.
In response, House and Senate leaders' only answer seems to be higher
taxes and massive new government spending. Already our children and
grandchildren are on the hook for the $1 trillion so-called ``stimulus
bill'' that has resulted in almost 10 percent unemployment nationwide,
even higher in my home State of Illinois.
Now the House leadership seems intent on pushing through another $1
trillion-plus health care takeover that only promises more taxes on
small businesses and working families. The result: fewer jobs except
for Washington bureaucrats who will be rationing out health care
procedures for patients.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Let's work together on real solutions
to cut taxes, to create the jobs and to rebuild this economy, not just
more Washington spending with no end in sight.

____________________

{time} 1445
JOBS ARE BEING SHREDDED

(Mr. TIBERI asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Speaker, a hundred of my colleagues have come and
asked, Mr. Speaker, ``Where are the jobs?'' We passed a stimulus bill
months ago, and in Ohio, we had 33,000 jobs lost just last month. The
jobs I see created, Mr. Speaker, are here in Washington--czars,
commissars--not real people back in Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? We passed a bill on this floor
creating a national energy tax which is going to cost Ohioans hundreds
of thousands of jobs. We're debating a health care bill where small
business owners are concerned that they're going to shed additional
jobs at a time when we need small business owners to create more jobs.
Mr. Speaker, Ohioans, as this chart points out, are shredding jobs in
this administration, are shredding jobs this year. We're creating a
record amount of deficits, record debt, higher taxes. All Americans
want, all Ohioans want, Mr. Speaker, are jobs.
Where are the jobs?

____________________

JOBS ARE HEADED TO INDIA AND CHINA

(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, the question of the day is ``Where are the
jobs?'' I will tell you where they're not. They're not in Michigan. Our
unemployment is 15.2 percent. And sadly, in this House, we passed an
awful energy bill a couple of weeks ago called cap-and-trade. That bill
will add nearly a trillion dollars to the cost of businesses and homes
across this country. Does that help with jobs? Absolutely not.
In fact, one of my constituents in Michigan said their utility
increases, their electricity costs will go up by nearly 40 percent by
the year 2024. Is that going to help with jobs? Absolutely not.
Did the Rules Committee allow us to add jobs with an amendment that
would build perhaps as many as 100 new nuclear reactors in this
country, tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs? No. The Rules
Committee said, You cannot offer that amendment.
Now, where are the jobs going? They're going to India and China. Did
you happen to see on July 16 The New York Times where Secretary Chu
said that if China's emissions of global warming gasses keep growing at
the pace of the last 30 years, the country will emit more gasses in the
next three decades than the United States.
Where are the jobs?

____________________

TWO AGENDAS

(Mr. DEAL of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, my State of Georgia now has an
unemployment rate in excess of 10 percent. As you've heard, other
States are in worse condition. We are asking today the question of
where are the jobs. We spent millions and billions, and perhaps even
now trillions, of dollars throwing money at the problem, and yet the
job losses continue.
The legislative agenda that's been adopted by this administration and
by this House has primarily two pieces of legislation. First is the
cap-and-trade, a bill that is setting us on a path that has already
been followed by some of our European countries, Spain in particular.
They set out on this path of green jobs over a decade ago. The result
is 17.5 percent unemployment. The green bubble burst, and for every job
they created, they lost 2.2 jobs.
The second major approach of this House has been the new health care
reform bill, a bill that will tax employers 8 percent of their payroll
amounts if they do not provide health insurance for their employees.
What does that mean? New jobs? No. It means losing jobs that we already
have.
Mr. Speaker, it's appropriate to ask, where are the jobs?

____________________

THE MORE CONGRESS SPENDS, THE WORSE THINGS ALWAYS SEEM TO TURN OUT

(Mr. POSEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, the stimulus bill was advertised as a way to
reduce unemployment and help put this economy back on track. The blue
line on this chart represents the projected path of the unemployment
rate. That was below 8 percent prior to the stimulus being passed. The
red line shows, in fact, what actually happened since the stimulus bill
was passed. It was well-intended, but surely it was misguided.
Now, the more Congress spends, the worse things always seem to turn
out. So let's get out of the bailout business. Let's get out of the
stimulus business. Let's get out of the national energy tax business,
and let's not get into the health care business. Let's let the free
enterprise system and the small businesses that made this economy great
stay strong and create jobs.

____________________

WE SHOULD BE SPURRING JOB CREATION

(Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, accompanying the spike in the private sector
job losses throughout our economy, we have seen a massive government
intrusion into the private market. This Chamber recently passed cap-
and-tax legislation which gives Washington 17 percent over the economy.
If we move towards nationalized health care--the next priority for the
administration--it could shift another 16 percent of our economy
towards Washington, D.C.
The Federal Government already runs General Motors and Chrysler. It
now has a huge equity stake in dozens of our financial institutions.
We've witnessed a massive $800 billion stimulus package that has failed
to deliver the promise of an increase in job growth. And this flawed
approach has failed to deliver because government spending does not
increase the size of the economic pie. What it simply does is take
money out of the private sector and shift it to the government.
Real economic growth has always and will always come from the private
sector. And instead of continuing this trend, shifting our economy to
one centered on bureaucrats, which is exponentially increasing our
deficit and killing off the private sector, we should be spurring job
creation.

____________________

JOB-KILLING LEGISLATION

(Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

[[Page 18500]]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose efforts
by the majority to rush through a misguided health care experiment that
will greatly increase the already sky-high unemployment in my State. At
a time when Floridians are facing double-digit unemployment, Congress
should not be pushing through a government takeover of health care that
will be paid for by a tax hike on small businesses.
And a recession nearing double-digit unemployment nationally will
discourage job growth and creation leading to even higher unemployment
and people with employer-based health insurance being forced onto the
government plan. This job-killing tax, combined with the crushing debt
some in Congress have been piling on our children and grandchildren to
pay for Big Government programs, will make it much more difficult for
future generations to succeed.
I urge my colleagues to reject this small business tax.

____________________

WHERE ARE THE JOBS AND TRANSPARENCY

(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say three things: Where are
the jobs? Where is the transparency that was promised? And where will
the savings come from in a health care proposal that, in fact, starts
off by talking about savings while, in fact, increasing spending?
You don't need a new tax if everything is already taxed and you are
going to save. You only need a new tax if, in fact, you are going to
spend more money, create more waste, fraud, and abuse.
Mr. Speaker, the President said we would not go above 8 percent, that
the stimulus would in fact drive down the tendency towards unemployment
and, in fact, create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? They were not created.
Mr. Speaker, the President said that this administration would have
unparalleled access and transparency, and yet the special IG for the
Troubled Asset Relief Program has said just the opposite, that he's
being blocked at every step, that, in fact, he's not getting the
transparency that he was promised.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Where is the transparency?

____________________

AMERICA'S RIGHT TO KNOW MONTH

(Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I propose that we make August
America Right to Know month. That means Americans have a right to know
what this Congress is doing in proposals that change their lives, and
what I'm talking about is the health care legislation.
Just a couple of days ago, we marked up this legislation in the Ways
and Means Committee, about a thousand pages, and it came to us 3
minutes before midnight the day prior to us marking it up.
We had an amendment in the committee that said, If we're going to
impose this new health care system on the American people, Members of
Congress, themselves, should be put into this system. What happened to
that amendment? It went down by a party-line vote. Republicans said
``yes''; Democrats, except for Mr. Davis of Alabama, said ``no.''
We also said let's recognize the fact that we're taxing people, a lot
of taxes on people earning less than $250,000. That violates the pledge
people believed they had in the last election. What was the vote? The
Republicans said, no, let's not tax people earning less than $250,000;
the Democrats said, yes, we will continue to tax those people,
violating this pledge, this promise the American people thought that
they had on Election Day.
August ought to be the month where America gets to know what's going
on.

____________________

EXCESSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT

(Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, my district extends from
Orlando to Daytona Beach. The State of Florida now has in excess of 10
percent unemployment. Nationally, 9.5 percent unemployment. Where are
the jobs?
Congress passed a $787 billion so-called stimulus package. I took to
the floor and spoke from the Democrats' side of the aisle and pleaded
with folks that we needed jobs and we needed to invest in America's
infrastructure; instead, we put less than 7 percent. So to date, out of
$787 billion and $48 billion for transportation highway money, we have
$523 million expended.
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, where are the jobs? People want to
work. They don't want government handouts. They don't want government
welfare or food stamps. They want jobs in my district and throughout
the Nation.
Where are the jobs, I come back to ask, that this country needs and
our people need?

____________________

AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, AND COMMISSIONS BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR DOCTOR

(Mr. BRADY of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people in Texas
who are worried what kinds of jobs they will have when this new
government-run health care plan goes through Congress, 1,018 pages
delivered to us a few minutes before midnight. We had until 9 o'clock
to read it and start voting on it.
Here's the plan: Thirty-one new Federal agencies, programs, and
commissions in between you and your doctor taking away control of your
health care.
At the committee, we asked, What does all this cost? They said, We
don't know the price tag. We offered amendments. We said, Can you
certify that Members of Congress read this bill and let the public read
it? They said they thought that was a bad idea. We asked about
rationing.
We were worried about wait times for family physicians and second-
class cancer treatment. They said that would be too inconvenient to
provide information, and they defeated it.
Then finally we said, Let's strike the taxes on small businesses, and
they refused to, saying small businesses have it so easy, they need to
raise taxes on them.
Ladies and gentlemen, we don't want the government telling us what
doctors we can see, what treatments we can receive, and what medicines
we can receive.

____________________

WASHINGTON-KNOWS-BEST MENTALITY

(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, last October, President Bush and Hank
Paulson said to the Congress we need to bail out the financial services
industry. We have to do it bold and we have to do it quick or the
financial markets will tumble. Well, we passed the $700 billion TARP
program, and still stock portfolios, savings of Americans all through
the country dropped by 30 or 40 percent.
In January, Nancy Pelosi and President Obama told us that we had to
act bold and fast to pass the stimulus program because the unemployment
rate was 8 percent, and now 2.5 million jobs have been lost since that
and unemployment is up to 10 percent.
And now the same Washington-knows-best mentality is telling us to
rush through a government takeover of health care by August 1. This
will result in a bureaucrat taking the place of your doctor telling you
what procedures you will have. It will result in a $1 trillion Federal
program. It will result in rationing and a huge tax increase on farmers
and small businesses.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have to slow down. Let's learn from the
stimulus program. Let's learn from TARP. Let's slow down the process.

[[Page 18501]]

____________________

BLUE DOGS NEED TO ENFORCE BILL

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, the pending health care legislation does
one thing: It does bend the cost curve, but it bends it up. That's not
according to me or my colleagues. That's according to the Congressional
Budget Office that says private insurance rates will go up and the
public option insurance will go up. What does that result in? 4.7
million jobs could be lost as a result of increased taxes, particularly
hard-hit small businesses.
Where are the jobs?
My Blue Dog colleagues are down at the House negotiating some face-
saving measure in this bill, and I'm going to include this list of
their proposals, but I want to make sure that they comply with their
July 9 letter which says it must be deficit neutral, it must protect
rural health care, it must ensure bipartisanship, and finally, any
health care reform legislation that comes to the floor must be
available to all Members and the public for a sufficient amount of time
before we are asked to vote on it.
This is government. This is transparency. The Blue Dogs need to
enforce it.

____________________

{time} 1500
THE JOBS WERE IN WYOMING

(Mrs. LUMMIS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, ``where are the jobs?'' could be answered
in one word, in my State of Wyoming. We were hiring people when our
energy industry was robust from other States that were losing jobs,
like Michigan. But the cap-and-trade bill that passed this House last
week changed coal bonus payments from being paid over 5 years to now
being paid in one lump-sum payment.
We are going to destroy jobs in Wyoming. So the people who moved from
Michigan to Wyoming to find good-paying jobs are now going to have to
return to Michigan or stay in Wyoming and be unemployed.
It is because of the activities of this Congress. This Congress has
not been happy to watch States like Michigan suffer. They have decided
to make States like Wyoming, that were producing energy for this
country, suffer right alongside States like Michigan. Our State, which
had a healthy economy before cap-and-trade, before the Obama
presidency, is now suffering just like the rest of the Nation. Our
unemployment has doubled in Wyoming, Mr. Speaker.

____________________

UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT

(Mr. SMITH of New Jersey asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, it was Albert Einstein who said
that ``the most powerful force in the universe is compound interest.''
That's great, Mr. Speaker, when compound interest is working for
you--in building a nest egg for your children's college costs or for
retirement. But when compound interest is working against you, it's
catastrophic.
It is absolutely devastating, especially for a Nation on the
intermediate and long term, when that Nation recklessly spends
taxpayers' money and causes huge, unsustainable deficits.
As of June 30, the national debt was $11.5 trillion--over $37,000 per
person. In June alone, the deficit rose by over $220 billion, a year's
worth of deficits in 1 month! Now CBO says that the number, the total
debt to the United States, will double in the next 10 years. It took
180 years for us to get to that $11.5 trillion. Under President Obama's
massive spending it will double in just 10 years. Nothing puts our
economy at greater risk of implosion and job loss than unsustainable
debt.

____________________

COMMONSENSE SOLUTIONS ARE THE CURE TO OUR ECONOMIC WOES

(Ms. JENKINS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JENKINS. Mr. Speaker, last November, Americans sent a clear
message. They wanted change in Washington. But they also asked for
accountability, transparency, and for politicians to respect their tax
dollars.
Unfortunately, from the $787 billion so-called ``stimulus,''
trillions in bailouts, and the $3.55 trillion budget, Washington has
gone on a reckless spending spree with taxpayer dollars.
And now the majority in Congress is trying to pass a government
takeover of health care that will add $239 billion to the debt our kids
will have to pay back.
Prime time press conferences don't hide the fact that since January,
our Nation's debt has skyrocketed by more than $1 trillion, that our
debt to China increases each day, and that our Nation is facing double-
digit unemployment levels.
Kansans know you can't spend money that you don't have. Congress must
learn this lesson. As a CPA, a former State treasurer and a mother of
two teenagers, I'm convinced that we need commonsense solutions to rein
in spending, keep taxes low and get Americans back to work.

____________________

JOBS WILL BE LOST AS A RESULT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM

(Mr. CRENSHAW asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, it's pretty clear that we've lost a lot of
jobs in this country, and I think it's pretty clear that we are going
to lose a whole lot more jobs if we pass this health care plan.
I thought Members might want to just hear a firsthand personal
example. I've got a longtime friend that lives in Florida. He has a
small business. By the way, he voted for Obama this year. He said, I'm
going to vote for Barack Obama, even though I'm a Republican, because
we need some change in this country.
I saw him this weekend. He said, hey, have you seen that Obama health
care plan? I said, yeah, as a matter of fact, I have. A lot of people
have seen it. He said, man, that's not the change that I was voting
for. He said, that's going to kill my business. He said, I'm going to
see my taxes go up. He said, we're already laying off people, but if
they put that penalty on us that I read about, then I'm going to have
to lay some more people off. He said, this is killing me.
And I'll tell you, that's happening all over the country, not just in
Orlando, Florida, but all around the country. So we need some reform,
but we need the right kind of reform, and this is not it.

____________________

$746,000 OF TAXPAYER MONEY FOR ONE JOB

(Mr. SCHOCK asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SCHOCK. Mr. Speaker, in the last 6 months, a lot has changed. We
have a new President of the United States, we have a new Congress, the
111th Congress, and we have 3.1 million fewer jobs, and an increase of
28 percent in unemployment just in the last 6 months.
What was the reaction? What was the response from the new
administration and of this Congress? Well, we need to pass a stimulus
bill, and we need to pass it now. No time for debate. No time for
amendments. No time for input from the minority. We need to pass it
now.
This bill had less than 24 hours of debate on this floor before it
was passed out of the floor, and yet the President took 4 days to sign
it. What did it do? It spent $787 billion, the largest spending bill in
our country's history.
And what have we gotten? The administration says we created 150,000
new jobs after spending $112 billion. Well, get out your calculators.
That is $746,000 of taxpayer money for one job.
Where are the jobs?

____________________

PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE PLAN LOSING SUPPORT

(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)

[[Page 18502]]

Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll
has found that for the first time, less than half of Americans support
President Obama's health care plan. Since April, approval of the
President's handling of health care has dropped 8 points, while
disapproval has risen 15 points.
In an example of fair reporting, the Post put the poll results on its
front page yesterday. Other news media have not been as candid in their
coverage of health care.
When the Congressional Budget Office director revealed that the
health care bill ``significantly expands the Federal responsibility for
health care costs,'' the evening news programs on both CBS and NBC
failed to report the CBO's key finding, nor have they reported how many
jobs will be lost under the President's health care plan.
Mr. Speaker, with so much at stake, Americans need the media to
report all the facts on health care.

____________________

HEALTH REFORM IS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE

(Mr. CAMPBELL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, President Obama told us
that all this reckless spending he was doing was going to create jobs.
Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? Instead of jobs, we get a so-called
``health reform'' bill. And this provision of that bill tells Americans
that they will be prohibited from having their own insurance. They will
be forced into a government health plan run by something like the IRS.
Mr. Speaker, this health plan is socialized medicine, pure and
simple. And in addition to that, it will cost more. It will increase
taxes on the wealthy and a whole lot of other people. It will increase
the deficit. It will lower quality. It doesn't cover everyone. And it
is projected to lose another 5 million jobs of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this is not reform. This is just nuts.

____________________

1934 CHICAGO TRIBUNE

(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this weekend, I received a communication
from a constituent at home who brought to my attention a political
cartoon that ran in the Chicago Tribune 75 years ago in 1934. It is
often said that history doesn't repeat itself, but if you listen
closely enough, it will rhyme. Or said another way, those who do not
recall their history are doomed to repeat it.
The constituent who sent this to me is a retired FBI agent. He wrote
in his e-mail, ``change the names and the situation looks very
familiar.'' Saul Alinsky, the leader of community organizers in
Chicago, would be pleased with the current situation. When you look at
the caption, spend, spend, spend under the guise of recovery, bust the
budget, blame the capitalists for failure, junk the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, this was apropos 75 years ago. It may well be apropos
again today.

____________________

RADAR IN SOUTH FLORIDA

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would ask my colleagues on the other side
if they would tell me, what is their health care plan? Is it just that
we shouldn't do health care? What part of it would you not do? is the
question that I ask.
But I really rise, Mr. Speaker, to take cognizance of a very fine day
yesterday of bipartisanship. A former colleague of ours, the now-
Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, came to south Florida along
with FAA Director Randy Babbitt to meet with several of us regarding
radar in south Florida. On the flight from USAir here, Administrator
Babbitt and I had an opportunity to hear a flight attendant do
something very nice. She recognized and complimented 30 members of the
Booker T. Washington High School class of 1949 in Miami who were en
route here to Washington. It was a wonderful gesture, and it made for a
wonderful day.
My colleagues here who continue to rant about us not having health
care, I wonder what they would say if we do nothing? Will health care
stay the same? Or will it rot?

____________________

CREATE WEALTH AND CREATE JOBS

(Mr. INGLIS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. INGLIS. Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to ask the President to make
good on his promise about those jobs, because I don't believe that
government creates jobs. Government doesn't create wealth. All it does
is move wealth around. We need jobs.
But I am here to ask the President to make good on the idea of
producing the right policies that would create jobs by creating wealth
in the private sector. And I would suggest to my colleagues that the
way to do that is to have a low-tax situation, a lighter touch on
regulation and less litigation. It's really those three things. If you
have low taxes, light-touch regulation, and less litigation, we will
expand the American economy, we will create wealth, and we will create
jobs.
That is something that we can be doing here in this Congress. It is
something that we can cooperate on getting done, and we can serve the
American people. We can deliver American solutions.

____________________

DON'T WRECK MEDICARE

(Mr. MORAN of Kansas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I for one believe that the health
care system must be reformed. I've said that and have worked in that
regard during my time in Congress. But I'm greatly concerned about the
plans that I see coming forth for us to consider in this Congress.
The single-payer plan raises concerns with me on behalf of senior
citizens across the country, especially those I represent in Kansas.
The plan that we are currently operating under, Medicare, provides
wonderful services for many Americans, for senior citizens. But the
reality is, that plan is bankrupt. We will spend $38 trillion more than
we have over the next 75 years.
The plan is expected to be bankrupt by 2017. So the idea that we
would expand the plan when it already is in financial difficulty
baffles my mind. The plan is to raise $820 billion in taxes, and we
still leave the national debt increasing by $239 billion. This plan
needs attention, and we need to make certain that what we do does not
wreck the health care delivery plan we have in place for seniors today,
especially in places like Kansas, where senior citizens are dominant.
That plan does that.

____________________

{time} 1515
THERE IS SERIOUS TROUBLE IN PARADISE

(Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, where are the jobs? I rise today to
discuss the rising unemployment in my congressional district of south
Florida. Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released data
indicating that unemployment in Miami-Dade County was at nearly 11
percent. This represents a notable increase from 9.9 unemployment just
last month.
Mr. Speaker, south Floridians are hurting. In Miami, workers in the
food service and hotel industries have had their hours cut in half
because of a reduction in tourism. These workers are working two, three
jobs in order to pay the bills.

[[Page 18503]]

In the Florida Keys, recreational fishermen are docking their boats
permanently as the industry grapples with one of its slowest seasons in
history.
There is serious trouble in paradise as hardworking small businesses
and middle-class families remain uncertain about their economic future.
That is why it's imperative that this Congress gets serious about
providing real solutions for our constituents. They cannot afford to
wait because they are looking for jobs.

____________________

WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING IS HAVING DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES ON THIS
COUNTRY

(Mr. SULLIVAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President and the Democrat majority, where in the
heck are the jobs? With this stimulus bill and more than $1 trillion
spent and zero job growth, where are the jobs?
With the national energy tax passed by this House, it levies billions
of new energy taxes on the American people, costing the average
American family $3,100 more a year to heat and cool their home and put
gas in the tank of their car. Where are the jobs?
On health care, our Democrat majority's $1.2 trillion government
takeover of our health care system mandates a one-size-fits-all,
government-run health care plan on most Americans. Their plan is to
nationalize our health care system and create new mandates, government
bureaucracy and inefficiency that will only serve to drive up costs of
our health care system even more.
Wasteful government spending is having devastating consequences on
this country. It also could cost 4.7 million more jobs and hurt small
business.

____________________

WE NEED TO FOCUS ON SAVING THE COUNTRY'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

(Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, when I was a young boy, a radio station
went on the air in Louisville, Kentucky, and for the first week of its
existence played one song over and over. It was called ``Purple People
Eater.''
I am reminded of that event today as we've heard speaker after
speaker from the other side repeat the same tired Republican talking
points. What we haven't heard is one idea about how to fix our
dysfunctional health care system which is threatening every business in
this country, threatening our competitiveness and our long-term
economic prospects.
It is time that this Congress and our colleagues from the other side
focus on saving this country's health care system. We heard one
gentleman from the other side saying we're facing $38 trillion in
additional debt in Medicare. We're trying to make sure that that
doesn't happen.
I wish our colleagues on the other side would help us in that task.

____________________

GOOD ENERGY POLICY IS GOOD JOBS POLICY

(Mrs. EMERSON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, in southern Missouri, rural families are
struggling with job losses. We are a vibrant district with a time-
honored work ethic, but job losses have hit us especially hard during a
time of unprecedented economic challenges.
Constituents call my office every day, and they're asking what is
Congress doing for them, how are we helping the manufacturing worker
who doesn't want to go to the unemployment office because he really
just wants to go back to work. And I hear a lot of justifiable anger
from the same callers about Congress' policies that are going to make
it tougher for them to get back to work. Cap-and-trade is the focus of
their frustration and mine.
Today, unemployment is still severe in southern Missouri with the
potential to go much higher, much higher, if the cap-and-trade bill
becomes law. More than 3,000 jobs could be lost in the Eighth District
in a single year, and the few new green jobs this bill would create
won't be in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will leave with us a legacy of energy cost
increases that will kill generations of jobs in rural America and in
southern Missouri. Like my constituents, I am ready and willing to get
to work if you will only give us the opportunity.
Good energy policy is good jobs policy. I hope we can reverse course
on cap-and-trade so it doesn't destroy our rural economy.

____________________

THE HEALTH CARE BILL WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER EXPENDITURES

(Mr. WHITFIELD asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. WHITFIELD. Last night, as the Energy and Commerce Committee met
to debate the new health care reform bill offered by the Democratic
Party, as I looked through the analysis by CBO, I discovered that there
was a reduction in Medicare benefits over the next 10 years in excess
of $450 billion.
In addition to that, there was a reduction in reimbursements to
hospitals of $155 billion over the next 10 years.
The part of it that bothered me most is that in so many rural areas,
programs like Medicare Advantage, home health care, skilled nursing
care were particularly hit by these reductions.
In addition to that, this bill provides for an additional tax on
employers, a tax on individuals that do not go out and buy health
insurance once the mandate goes into effect; and, still, the bill is
not paid for. And as the CBO director indicated, this bill will not
save taxpayer money. This bill will create additional taxpayer
expenditures.

____________________

WE DON'T NEED A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE AND WE DON'T NEED
ADDITIONAL JOB LOSSES

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SOUDER. Where are the jobs? Last week, the health care bill was
passed through the Education and Labor Committee, jammed through in an
all-night session; and, supposedly, it offered a public-private option.
Just a few minutes ago, we finished an Education and Labor markup.
Where we once had a public-private option in direct lending, 80 percent
chose the nonpublic option. So what did we just do? We eliminated the
private option, and the Federal Government is going to be a giant bank,
one of the biggest banks in the world, taking over all student lending.
When we talk about the needs in health care, we need to address the
problems that we're facing, the gaps in the health care system, how to
make it more efficient. What we don't need is a government takeover of
health care with no private options. We don't need higher taxes on the
small businesses and the people in my district who are struggling with
a mean of 15 percent unemployment in my eight counties. We don't need
additional job losses.
And this bill unbelievably had a clause added that will add more jobs
for ACORN. When people in my district said they wanted more jobs, they
didn't mean more jobs for ACORN.

____________________

AMERICA DEMANDS REAL REFORM

(Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, it's an outrage the way health
care is being approached in this country. Voters did vote for change;
but, apparently, that's all they're going to have left in their pocket.
I sat through a 17-hour markup on the Ways and Means Committee last
week, and I didn't see one constructive process. I didn't see the
voices of Democrats and Republicans heard on addressing the delivery
system for Medicare to re-engineer it to reduce billions of dollars in
cost.

[[Page 18504]]

Instead of reforming the private insurance industry that many of us
want to do on both sides, Speaker Pelosi's response to that and the
Democratic response to that is we'll legislate them out of business by
undercutting them with a Medicare-like system which will punish rural
America.
And finally, egregiously, there's been no addressing of liability
reform that punishes our doctors and health care providers with junk
lawsuits.
America demands real reform. We want real reform. Slow this thing
down and give account to America for the kind of health care people
need and want and that's affordable and accessible and not a
government-run plan.

____________________

GREATEST THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND ECONOMY FROM CAP-AND-TRADE BILL
WAS SMOKE COMING OUT OF THE BACK-ROOM DEALS

(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, the American people were promised a climate
change bill that would address the emissions problems. The problem is
that their greatest threat to the environment and the economy from the
so-called cap-and-trade bill was the smoke coming out of the back-room
deals that were cut to create this monster that's being called cap-and-
trade.
Frankly, I will just tell you the whole concept that when we had a
chance to get government out of the way and build new zero emission
generating facilities to be able to provide clean energy for the
economy and for the environment, instead of that, this Congress decided
to drop the cap and tax, tax, tax.
And anyone that's worked on emissions issues will look at this bill
in the future and say how could somebody with a straight face go back
to their district and say that this bill is going to clean up the
environment and help the economy? It is going to continue the pattern
of a massive emission while we get the economy driven down.
There is no cap in this bill, only taxes.

____________________

WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE STIMULUS RIGHT THE FIRST TIME

(Mr. KLINE of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, people are asking where are the
jobs.
As my friend from Indiana said moments ago, we just came out of
amending a bill in the Education and Labor Committee where we wiped out
the private sector in the student lending business, tens of thousands
of jobs just erased.
As all my colleagues know, this House, this Congress, passed a
stimulus bill which was supposed to create jobs. Instead, we've been
losing millions of jobs.
I find it interesting that the Republicans offered an alternative to
that stimulus bill which would have cut taxes and created twice as many
jobs, and now Christina Romer, the President's economic adviser, when
she's been pressed on news interviews on two separate occasions in May
and again in July about where are the jobs and why isn't the stimulus
working, she said, well, the tax cuts in the stimulus bill are working.
How ironic. We should have done it right the first time.

____________________

WE NEED A PRESCRIPTION OF LOWER TAXES AND LOWERING SPENDING

(Mr. GUTHRIE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GUTHRIE. I remember walking into my home one night when I was a
senior in high school after school, 1982. My father and mother were
talking with each other with a distressed look on their faces, and my
dad was telling my mother that he was losing his job. The factory where
he expected to work his entire life was shutting down. This was 1982,
the recession, a recession like we find ourselves in today; and the
prescription from Washington was to lower spending and to cut taxes.
In the late 1980s, my father decided to take advantage of the economy
and create a plant that he used to work at; and he decided to start a
new plant, created over 500 jobs because Washington's prescription was
lowering taxes and lowering spending.
The prescription today coming out of Washington to try to get out of
this recession is to raise regulation and to raise taxes; and, Mr.
Speaker, I believe that's why we're lingering in this recession,
because people don't want to invest, because they're concerned about
what's happening here in Washington, D.C.

____________________

FIRST, DO NO HARM

(Mr. PLATTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, as the House of Representatives addresses
the very important issue of health care reform, we need to adhere to
the principles of all physicians: first, do no harm.
Unfortunately, the legislation that came out of the House Education
and Labor Committee late last week does not adhere to this principle.
CBO tells us it will drive up the costs of health care in the United
States. In fact, when it's fully implemented, over $200 billion a year
this plan will cost, it will not protect the right to keep the
insurance coverage that you currently have. If you like it--that was
one of the underlying principles of the administration--this bill will
not protect that right.
It will not adhere to that principle: do no harm. It will drive up
costs. It will take away freedom of choice of the American citizens,
and it is also going to have an impact on the ability for small
businesses to provide insurance because of the taxes included in this
bill. It's going to cost people insurance because small businesses will
not be able to continue to afford the 8 percent payroll tax as well as
an increase on small businesses filing a subchapter S.
First, do no harm. We need to adhere to that principle.
Unfortunately, this legislation does not do that.

____________________

REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN CUT OUT OF THE PROCESS

(Mr. NUNES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to come down here, Mr.
Speaker, but then I heard the distinguished Democrat leader, Mr. Hoyer,
come down and chastise us for using 1-minutes. Mr. Hoyer, you know why
we're using these 1-minutes. It's because you've cut us out of the
process.
For the first time in this Nation's history, appropriations bills
aren't under open rules. So we have no opportunity to offer amendments
under the appropriations bills.
So you can understand why, in my district, having almost 20 percent
unemployment, some of the highest unemployment in the country because
this government fails to act to get water to the people to provide for
the general welfare of the people of my district, this is why we come
down here, Mr. Hoyer.
So I would suggest that we probably won't do this again because you
will probably take away this advantage that we have of using these 1-
minutes to make our case before the American people. I assume this will
be the last day we have unlimited 1-minutes, but I can promise you that
if you just go back to the open rules process on the appropriations
bills, we will gladly not use these unlimited 1-minutes this way.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will kindly remind Members that
remarks in debate should be directed to the Chair and not to others in
the second person.

[[Page 18505]]

____________________

NEVADA'S ECONOMY IS THE MOST DISTRESSED IN THE NATION

(Mr. HELLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, in a recent study Nevada's economy is now
determined to be the most distressed in the Nation; and if you recall,
4 months ago we passed a stimulus package and we were promised by this
administration, and by the majority, if we do this, if we pass this
stimulus package, that we'd only have 8 percent unemployment. It would
never exceed 8 percent unemployment. Yet we had to do it right now. We
had to pass this piece of legislation.
Well, I'm here to tell you today that Nevada's unemployment is at 12
percent, and that this administration says that the unemployment is
even going to go higher.
So the question is, What did the stimulus do for Nevada? Well, in Las
Vegas, Las Vegas has received to date $4,833. So the question is,
Where's the money? $4,833 to Nevada and to Las Vegas.
Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman said, ``I bet more on a football game
than what the city's received.''
I ask the Speaker: Where's the money and where are the jobs?

____________________

{time} 1530
JOBS

(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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I want
someone to show me the jobs that we have been promised by the
Democrats. Many counties in my district have unemployment rates of more
than 13 percent.
Show me the jobs, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues on the Democratic side
of the aisle promised that their trillion-dollar stimulus would
immediately create jobs and unemployment would not rise above 8
percent. Nothing could be further from the truth. In June alone, almost
half a million jobs were lost, driving unemployment to its highest
level in 26 years.
Now, after shoving a $646 billion energy tax down the throats of the
American people, liberal leadership is now shoving a multitrillion-
dollar health experiment. According to the CBO, this will cost 750,000
more jobs and push 100 million Americans off of their private health
care plans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to show me the jobs and show me why the
American people should believe once again that a trillion-dollar
experiment will work.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
now will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H. Con. Res. 164, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 2729, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 1622, by the yeas and nays; and
H. Res. 507, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

RECOGNIZING 40TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE

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. 164, 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 Georgia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 164.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 422,
nays 0, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 596]

YEAS--422

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz

[[Page 18506]]

Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Cleaver
Davis (TN)
Hill
Kirk
McCarthy (NY)
McHugh
McMahon
Moore (WI)
Reyes
Sestak
Waxman

{time} 1556

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
Stated for:
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 596, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

AUTHORIZING NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PARKS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2729, 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 New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2729, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 330,
nays 96, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 597]

YEAS--330

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--96

Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Deal (GA)
Dreier
Duncan
Fallin
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Linder
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson
Paul
Pence
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Price (GA)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Stearns
Thornberry
Tierney
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wittman
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--7

Kirk
McCarthy (NY)
Murphy (CT)
Paulsen
Sestak
Speier
Sullivan

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1603

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.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR NATURAL GAS VEHICLE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1622, 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 New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1622, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 393,
nays 35, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 598]

YEAS--393

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole

[[Page 18507]]

Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--35

Akin
Bishop (UT)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Chaffetz
Coble
Culberson
Duncan
Ehlers
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Issa
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Linder
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
McClintock
Paul
Pence
Petri
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield

NOT VOTING--5

Blackburn
Crowley
Kirk
McCarthy (NY)
Sestak

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1610

____________________

SUPPORTING NATIONAL DAIRY MONTH

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 507,
as amended, 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 Georgia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 507, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 428,
nays 0, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 599]

YEAS--428

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney

[[Page 18508]]

Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--5

Blackburn
Crowley
Kirk
McCarthy (NY)
Sestak

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in the vote.

{time} 1617

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 658, this time
has been designated for the taking of the official photo of the House
of Representatives in session.
The House will be in a brief recess while the Chamber is being
prepared for the photo.
As soon as these preparations are complete, the House will
immediately resume its actual session for the taking of the photograph.
About 5 minutes after that, the House will proceed with the business
of the House.
For the information of the Members, when the Chair says the House
will be in order, we are ready to take our picture. That will be in
just a few minutes.

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess while the Chamber is being prepared.
Accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker at 4 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.
(Thereupon, the Members sat for the official photograph of the House
of Representatives for the 111th Congress.)

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the Chair declares
the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair in 2 or 3 minutes.
Accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 27 minutes p.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer) at 4 o'clock and 29 minutes p.m.

____________________

NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise
to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of
the House.
The form of the resolution is as follows:

Whereas, on May 25, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Oliver
W. Wanger issued a ruling that directed the Bureau of
Reclamation to reduce water exports from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta to protect a three-inch minnow called the
Delta smelt;
Whereas, on December 15, 2008, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, based on the Wanger Ruling, issued a
Biological Opinion on the Delta smelt that permanently
reduced water export from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Delta which is traditionally delivered to cities and farms in
the San Joaquin Valley and the Los Angeles and San Diego
basins;
Whereas according to a University of California at Davis
study, based on the water reductions outlined in the Delta
smelt Biological Opinion, revenue losses in the San Joaquin
Valley of California for 2009 will be $2.2 billion and job
losses at 80,000;
Whereas according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the unemployment rate in the San Joaquin Valley has reached
the highest level in the Nation;
Whereas region wide unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley
of California is nearly 20 percent and some cities have an
unemployment rate of 40 percent;
Whereas thousands of people who once relied on employment
in the agricultural sector are now unemployed and struggling
to meet their most basic needs, such as providing food for
their families;
Whereas, on March, 1, 2009, the Sacramento Bee reported
thousands of people have been turned away from local food
banks as supplies are not ample enough to meet local needs;
Whereas, on April 14, 2009, the Fresno County, California,
Board of Supervisors proclaimed that the man-made drought has
created an economic crisis;
Whereas on June 4, 2009, despite the ongoing man-made
drought in California, the National Marine Fisheries Service
issued a new Biological Opinion on the spring-run Chinook
salmon, Central Valley steelhead, the southern population of
North American green sturgeon, and Southern Resident killer
whales which further reduces water supplies to Californians;
Whereas, on June 19, 2009, California's Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for Fresno
County, California, and petitioned President Barack Obama to
declare the county a Federal disaster area;
Whereas on June 28, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar visited Fresno, California, and held a town hall
meeting in which nearly 1,000 people attended to express
their dissatisfaction with the lack of action by the Obama
Administration;
Whereas, on July 6, 2009, the Los Angeles Times reported
that during Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's town hall
meeting on June 28, 2009, the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation, Mike Connor, pledged to provide financial aid to
starving families and an audience member replied ``we don't
want welfare, we want water'';
Whereas, on June 29, 2009, CBS 5 Eyewitness News reported
that hundreds of San Joaquin Valley farmers protested outside
the Federal Building Plaza in San Francisco which houses
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's district office;
Whereas, on June 29, 2009, CBS 5 Eyewitness News reported
the protestors blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman
George Miller for the water shortage in the San Joaquin
Valley;
Whereas, on June 29, 2009, CBS 5 Eyewitness News reported
that protestors were holding signs that said ``ESA Puts Fish
Ahead of People'', ``Congress Created Drought'', and ``New
Endangered Species: The California Farmer'';
Whereas, on July 1, 2009, the Fresno Bee reported that a
crowd of 4,000 marched through the streets of Fresno,
California, to demand that the Federal Government end the
man-made drought;
Whereas, on June 18, 2009, the Democrat leadership held
open Roll Call Vote 366 for the purpose of changing the
outcome of the vote;
Whereas during this vote, House Democrat leadership was
seen on the House floor pressuring Members of Congress to
change their Aye vote to a Nay vote in order to defeat the
Nunes Amendment which would have helped to relieve the water
crisis in California;
Whereas, on July 8, 2009, during the mark-up on the Energy
and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2010, a debate was held on the Calvert Amendment which
would have restored water deliveries to Californians;
Whereas during the mark-up, the Chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, David Obey, said ``Recognize there
are certain actions, that if you take, this bill won't pass,
your earmarks in the bill won't become law'';
Whereas Chairman Obey violated Clause 16 of House Rule 23
by linking passage of the Calvert Amendment to loss of
earmarks;
Whereas, on July 14, 2009, despite historical tradition of
open rules during the appropriations process, the Rules
Committee blocked an amendment to the Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
that would have restored water deliveries to Californians;

[[Page 18509]]

Whereas, for two years, the House of Representatives has
known about the man-made drought in California without taking
legislative action to resolve the crisis;
Whereas the lack of action by the House of Representatives
has demonstrated that fish are more important than families;
Whereas article 1, section 8 of the United States
Constitution enumerates that the Congress shall have the
power to provide for the general welfare of the United
States;
Whereas the House of Representatives has willfully and
knowingly failed to provide for the general welfare of the
San Joaquin Valley of California; and
Whereas the failure of the House of Representatives to
carry out its duties has subjected the House to public
ridicule and damaged the dignity and integrity of the House
of Representatives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Natural Resources is
instructed to discharge H.R. 3105, the Turn on the Pumps Act
of 2009, for immediate consideration by the House of
Representatives.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after
the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the
gentleman from California will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

____________________

{time} 1630
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.

____________________

EXTENDING DEADLINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PRICE DAM HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2938) to extend the deadline for commencement of
construction of a hydroelectric project.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2938

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding the time period specified
in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that
would otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission project numbered 12187, the Commission may, at the
request of the licensee for the project, and after reasonable
notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and
public interest requirements of that section and the
Commission's procedures under that section, extend the time
period during which the licensee is required to commence the
construction of the project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year
periods from the date of the expiration of the extension
originally issued by the Commission.
(b) Reinstatement of Expired License.--If the period
required for commencement of construction of the project
described in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commission may reinstate the
license effective as of the date of its expiration and the
first extension authorized under subsection (a) shall take
effect on the date of such expiration.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Costello) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.

General Leave

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2938 would allow the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to extend the construction deadline for a
hydroelectric power plant at the Melvin Price Locks and Dam in Alton,
Illinois. Over the past 20 years, there has been great interest in
building a hydroelectric plant at this site on the Mississippi River;
however, construction of the hydroelectric plant has not happened on
this site as of this date.
Last October, Brookfield Power acquired the license to proceed with
the construction of the site. When Brookfield applied for an extension
of the construction deadline, the company was informed that because of
the administrative extensions granted to the previous licensee,
congressional action is needed to grant an extension.
Brookfield will lose this license at the end of this month, July
2009. For that reason, Brookfield and the City of Alton, Illinois,
requested legislation to extend the deadline for 6 years.
Passing this legislation is necessary to ensure that Brookfield can
bring renewable energy to Illinois and create green jobs. The
hydroelectric project will create 404,000 megawatt hours of
electricity, the equivalent of 283 barrels of oil. Further, Brookfield
will hire 125 workers over a 3-year period and invest over $400 million
to construct the plan.
This bill is cosponsored by my friend and colleague from Illinois,
Congressman John Shimkus. Both the majority and minority staff of the
Energy and Commerce Committee have reviewed and accepted the
legislation. FERC has also reviewed the legislation and does not oppose
it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2938.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2938, a bill that
extends the timeline to bring this hydroelectric power plant project in
Illinois on line. It gives them another up to 6 years, and ultimately,
this would be the decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
But as they're going through the process right now of permitting and
approval, this provides them an additional 6 years to make sure that
the project has enough time to get approved and completed and bring
this new power source on line.
I would like to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Oregon (Mr.
Walden).
Mr. WALDEN. I thank my colleague from Louisiana.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today also in support of this legislation. I
think it's a good bill because I think hydroelectric power is a good
thing for our country, and when we're concerned about getting renewable
energy online, there's probably nothing better than hydropower for
that.
Unfortunately, in the cap-and-tax bill that was passed by this House
over my objection and over the objection of the gentleman from
Illinois, there is a provision on page 19, line 12, sub 3, that says,
The hydroelectric project installed on the dam is operated so that the
water surface elevation at any given location and time that would have
occurred in the absence of the hydroelectric project is maintained.
Now, I share this language with you because the gentleman from
Illinois, my friend, talked about the 404,000 watts or megawatts,
whatever it is--I didn't jot down the exact amount--would be produced
as hydroelectric power and, therefore, renewable energy and create new
jobs. My concern is this: that hydropower is being added after this
legislation is moving forward.
Should the cap-and-tax bill become law, that hydropower, according to
this language, would not be considered as renewable energy for purposes
of Illinois meeting the new Federal standard on renewable energy.
Because in consultation with two civil engineers I've spoken with who
operate hydro projects--many of them and large-scale hydro projects--
when I shared this language with them about maintaining the surface
elevation at any location in time, they laughed. They said you can't
operate a hydro system and not affect the water behind the dam in some
way at some point.
And so to disqualify the new hydro--like the gentleman from Illinois
is trying to get here--makes no sense to me.

[[Page 18510]]

Either hydropower is renewable or it's not.
Now, there is another provision in this bill, the cap-and-tax bill,
that said hydro that came online after 1988 is renewable but hydro
before 1988 is not. Now, you have got water flowing down a river.
You've got multiple dams along the way with hydro generation
facilities. It's the same water. It just depends on what year the dam
was built whether or not that hydropower is considered renewable or
not. That doesn't make a lot of sense.
Nor do the provisions in the cap-and-tax bill that said, if woody
biomass off a Federal forest comes off of a late successional stand,
you can't count the burning of that to produce green energy as
renewable energy, but if it came off of a severely damaged tree, it is,
although there is no definition for that. And if any woody biomass
comes off private, county, State lands, it's all considered renewable
energy when it produces electricity when it's burned, but yet there is
this restriction on Federal land.

{time} 1645

I share that with you because America's Federal forests are
terrifically overstocked and subject to catastrophic fire.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCALISE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. WALDEN. We could create more real jobs cleaning up the forest in
very depressed communities. I was just out in four counties in my
district. I think two, maybe three, are now at over 20 percent
unemployment. They have 70, 50 and 80 percent Federal land. This is the
great forests of our country that are left to burn up. The woody
biomass could be put into clean energy. There are firms willing to
invest if they could get supply. Again, the cap-and-trade, cap-and-tax
bill harms that effort.
So I share the gentleman's support of this legislation to create and
move forward on the hydro project. It's unfortunate if the cap-and-tax
bill that passed the House becomes law that hydro will not be
considered renewal. That doesn't make sense. And I hope that the Senate
can correct this problem.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for supporting
this legislation. I share the same concern that you have with the
section that you quoted in the energy bill, and we hope that our
friends in the other body will address that issue so that it is not a
concern for the future.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. I would like to yield 3 minutes to a cosponsor of this
bill, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Melvin Price Locks and Dam is named after an historic
member of this Chamber, Mel Price, who gave me my nomination to West
Point. So it is with great affinity that I just mentioned that. But now
that district is ably represented by my friend and colleague, Jerry
Costello, and I thank him for including me on this reauthorization
bill.
The Republicans have already talked about an all-of-the-above energy
strategy which talks about nuclear, wind, solar and hydroelectric. And
no one is really more knowledgeable on the hydroelectric issue than the
colleague who preceded me, Greg Walden. There is a concern about if we
want these programs, these licenses, to actually become real projects
in the whole credit issue, then this has to qualify for renewable, and
that will help bring some dollars to help effect this instead of just
worrying about relicensing, then we can actually get it built. But if
we don't do this process, then we have to go through the whole
paperwork procedure.
I'm very happy to be here with my friend who, again, worked hard and
diligently for southern Illinois. And this is all part of that all-of-
the-above energy strategy that will help us decrease our reliance on
imported crude oil. Thank you for letting me join you in this
resolution.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise really in amazement today to hear our colleagues
on the other side talk about hydroelectric power being a renewable
energy source, because we have seen multiple venues here in the House
where Democrats have denied that.
Mr. Speaker, we have a tremendous need in this country for
alternative sources of energy, renewable sources of energy. Nuclear
energy is one of those renewable sources of energy, or a source of
energy that is one that makes the most sense from an environmental
perspective as well as a cost perspective.
We have many members of the opposition on the other side that want to
deny us going into a nuclear age. France gets over 80 percent of its
electric power from nuclear sources. The United States should do the
same thing. In my home State of Georgia, the Georgia Power Company for
a long period of time now has been trying to get permitting for two new
nuclear reactors at their plant in Vogel just south of my district,
just south of Augusta, Georgia. They already have two. They want two
more. But, Mr. Speaker, they have had a great deal of difficulty
because the regulatory commission and various environmental groups have
made it extremely difficult.
They are not alone. All over this country, there are electric power
companies that want to put in electric power plants that are nuclear-
fueled. Mr. Speaker, they have great difficulty doing so. We need to
use our renewable resources, not only for hydroelectric power, but for
nuclear power. We need to look to wind and solar. We need to look to
biomass. We need to stop this idiocy of a corn-based ethanol source of
energy. Mr. Speaker, I'm from Georgia, and I love my cornbread and
grits. It makes no sense to me to drive down the road burning up my
food. But we've done that. And it has driven up the cost of corn for
the chicken producers that produce most of the chicken for the world,
all over the world in my district, and in my friend Nathan Deal's
district from Gainesville in the Ninth and Tenth Congressional
Districts of Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, we have an energy policy that is broken. Republicans
have presented bill after bill that would solve the energy crisis. The
American Energy Act is one. It is an all-of-the-above energy plan that
would stimulate hydroelectric power. It would stimulate nuclear power.
It would look to alternative sources of power.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCALISE. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. But our plans are not being heard on the floor
of this House. Why is that? Why are the American people's
representatives not being heard?
It is because the leadership on the Democratic side wants to stifle
debate, wants to shut off any alternative ideas. They call the
Republican Party the ``Party of No,'' but the Democratic Party has been
the Party of No, whereas the Republican Party is the Party of k-n-o-w
Know because we know how to solve the energy crisis. We know how to
solve the health care financing crisis. We know how to solve the
economic crisis. But those ideas are not being heard. Mr. Speaker, it
is time for the American people to wake up and demand that the
Republicans are heard.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from Louisiana if he
has other speakers?
Mr. SCALISE. I'm prepared to close.
Mr. COSTELLO. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I again rise in support of the legislation
dealing with hydroelectric power. I think it is important, as we are
talking about energy, that we really talk about the need to get a
comprehensive national energy policy in our country. It is not just
enough to promote hydroelectric power. It is not just enough to look at
any one significant source of power. We need to look at all of the
resources in our land. In fact, the inscription by

[[Page 18511]]

Daniel Webster right above the Speaker's rostrum talks about the need
to explore the resources of our land. Unfortunately, there are many
Federal laws and barriers in place that prevent us from doing just
that. This cap-and-trade national energy tax imposes even more
barriers. In addition to imposing significant taxes on to the backs of
American people in the form of higher utility rates and bureaucratic
regulations, it will run millions of jobs out of this country.
That's not the right approach. What we need is a comprehensive energy
policy. I'm proud to be a cosponsor, with many other of my colleagues,
of the American Energy Act, a bill that we filed earlier this year to
take that comprehensive approach to a national energy policy, one that
looks at all of the alternatives. We explore more technologies for
wind, for solar, for hydroelectric and for nuclear power. We use our
natural resources, like oil and natural gas, to get to that bridge to
fund those other alternatives. We use the things that we have here
today to get us to those technologies that aren't yet readily available
to power our homes or to run our cars. But hopefully one day, through
the use of these technologies, we will advance the utilization of the
natural resources we have in our country to create jobs.
Our bill would actually create jobs and generate billions of dollars
to the Federal Government, not by raising taxes, but by actually
creating more economic opportunities by creating jobs and getting
people back to work so that they can contribute and pay into and pay
down this debt as opposed to raising the debt and running off jobs.
So I would hope that we would support and get to a place where we can
actually get agreement in a bipartisan way to pass a bipartisan bill
like the American Energy Act that actually takes a comprehensive
approach to solving our national energy needs and reducing our
dependence on Middle Eastern oil--rather than this tax approach, this
cap-and-trade energy tax that actually would make countries in Europe,
the Middle East and China more powerful and put America further at
risk--so we can get our strengthened energy policy and we can get
energy independence. But we need to have a bipartisan approach, not
this cap-and-trade energy tax that literally would run millions of jobs
out of our country.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from Louisiana and
the minority for supporting this legislation. In particular I would
like to thank my colleague from Illinois, Congressman Shimkus, not only
for his kind words, but for cosponsoring this legislation.
I urge passage of H.R. 2938, and with that I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2938.
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. BROUN of Georgia. 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.

____________________

RECOGNIZING LATINO DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 69) recognizing the need to continue research into
the causes, treatment, education, and an eventual cure for diabetes,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 69

Whereas diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease caused by
the inability of the pancreas to produce insulin or to use
the insulin produced in the proper way;
Whereas in the case of Type I diabetes or insulin-dependent
diabetes, formerly called juvenile-onset diabetes because it
tends to affect persons before the age of 20, the pancreas
makes almost no insulin;
Whereas in the case of Type II diabetes or non-insulin-
dependent diabetes, which comprises about 90 percent of all
cases of diabetes, the pancreas produces a reduced amount of
insulin or the cells do not respond to the insulin;
Whereas this year 23.6 million Americans suffer from one
form or another of this disease, and 5.7 million people go
undiagnosed, commonly known as pre-diabetes;
Whereas 2.0 million or 8.2 percent of all Latino Americans
aged twenty years or older have diabetes, and Latino
Americans are 1.5 times more likely to have diabetes than
non-Latino whites of similar age;
Whereas Mexican-Americans, the largest Latino subgroup in
the United States, are more than twice as likely to have
diabetes as non-Latino whites of similar age;
Whereas residents of Puerto Rico are 1.8 times more likely
to have diagnosed diabetes than United States non-Latino
whites;
Whereas diabetes affects individuals in different ways, and
as a result, treatment programs will vary;
Whereas diabetes in the Latino community can result in a
high prevalence of complications, such as foot problems and
amputations, kidney failure that may lead to chronic or end
stage renal disease, blindness, numbness and loss of
sensation in the legs, heart attacks and strokes, and
eventually death;
Whereas individuals suffering from diabetes can reduce
their risk for complications if they are educated about their
disease; learn and practice the skills necessary to better
control their blood glucose, blood pressure, and cholesterol
levels; exercise; and receive regular checkups;
Whereas targeted health communications to the public are
vital in disseminating information about diabetes and the
need to live a healthy lifestyle;
Whereas the Latino Diabetes Association, a nonprofit
organization devoted to aggressive diabetes education, has
worked tirelessly to raise funds for diabetes education and
to find the causes of and cure for diabetes; and
Whereas the month of July of 2009 would be an appropriate
month to recognize Latino Diabetes Awareness Month in order
to educate Latino communities across the Nation about
diabetes and the need for research funding, accurate
diagnosis, and effective treatments: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the need to continue research into the
causes, treatment, education, and an eventual cure for
diabetes;
(2) commends those hospitals, community clinics,
educational institutes, and other organizations that are--
(A) working to increase awareness of diabetes; and
(B) conducting research for methods to help patients and
families in the Latino community suffering from diabetes;
(3) congratulates the work of the Latino Diabetes
Association for its great efforts to educate, support, and
provide hope for individuals and their families who suffer
from diabetes;
(4) supports the designation of an appropriate month to
recognize ``Latino Diabetes Awareness Month''; and
(5) calls upon the people of the United States to observe
the month with appropriate programs and activities.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Baca) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

General Leave

Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days 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 California?
There was no objection.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I would like to thank Majority Leader Hoyer, Chairman Waxman,
Ranking Member Barton and Health Subcommittee Chair Pallone and, of
course, my colleague from Louisiana, a good baseball player, for their
support of this resolution. I also want to take the time to thank all
my colleagues in the House of Representatives for their bipartisan
support of this resolution.
I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 69, the Latino
Diabetes Awareness Resolution. The resolution recognizes the need to
continue research into the causes, treatment, education and an eventual
cure for diabetes and commends those organizations

[[Page 18512]]

that are working to increase awareness of diabetes and conducting
research for methods to help patients and families in Latino
communities suffering from diabetes.
It also congratulates the work of the Latino Diabetes Association for
its great efforts to educate, support and provide hope for individuals
and families who suffer from diabetes. The resolution also supports the
designation of July 2009 as ``Latino Diabetes Awareness Month.'' It
calls upon the people of the United States to observe the month with
appropriate programs and activities.
It is critical for the long-term sustainability of any health care
reform plan to make sure that steps for the prevention of diseases,
like diabetes, are encouraged by Congress. This prevention of disease
would do a great deal in helping keep costs down for current patients,
as well as favorably changing the attitudes and behavior of diabetes
patients and their families, thereby improving their quality of life.
We can take a good first step in achieving these goals by passing
this resolution here today. Diabetes is a chronic disease of the
pancreas and adversely affects its ability to produce and use insulin
in the proper way.
Diabetes has no cure, treatment varies from patient to patient, and
it is quite often very painful. Some side effects of treatment include
weight gain, skin rash or itching, various stomach problems, tiredness
and dizziness, and swelling in the leg and ankle.
The impact of diabetes is not focused solely on the patient; family
members and immediate care takers also suffer greatly from the effects
of diabetes on their loved ones. I say this from personal experience.
In the Latino community, diabetes can result in high prevalence of
foot problems, kidney failure, renal disease, blindness, heart attacks,
strokes and eventually death.

{time} 1700

What's scariest is that diabetes patients who need to take one or
more insulin shots daily, and for whatever reason do not, greatly
increase their risk of stroke and heart attack.
One of the reasons I believe diabetes disproportionately affects the
Latino community is the lack of sound health communication that speaks
to those Hispanics who are most at risk of coming down with diabetes,
or who already suffer from it. This means targeting communications
efforts to both English- and Spanish-speaking communities and
specifically referencing these efforts towards the area of our culture
that puts us at risk the most: our diets.
Over 23.6 million Americans suffer from diabetes, and of these, 2
million are Latinos or of Latino descent; 8.6 of all Latinos over the
age of 20 live with this disease. However, Latinos are almost twice as
likely to have diabetes as non-Latino whites of similar age.
Individuals suffering from diabetes can reduce their risk for
complications if they are educated about their disease and take the
proper steps to care for themselves. This means learning and practicing
the skills necessary to better control their blood glucose, blood
pressure and cholesterol levels. They must exercise and receive regular
checkups, as well as maintain a healthy, balanced diet, as well as
maintaining willingness to change these dangerous eating habits.
And that becomes very difficult for a lot of us because we like our
frijoles, our tortillas, our tamales, our enchiladas, our menudo; but
we have to put that aside. This could include eating meals prepared
healthier, eating more moderate portions, or a combination of these.
Two people ought to be commended for their hard work in the attempts
to educate the public about diabetes and treatments for patients, and
that's actors Rita Torres and Edward Olmos. A few years ago, I worked
with Rita Torres and Edward to help put together a short documentary
highlighting the day-to-day lives of different diabetes patients,
regardless of age or ethnicity, and they ought to be recognized for
their tireless efforts to raise diabetes awareness.
I have been affected personally by diabetes through the loss of five
members of my immediate family. My father was a proud, hardworking man,
never missed a day of work for any reason until he was struck down by
diabetes and ultimately needed to have a leg amputated. It originally
started with a toe, half a leg, and then the leg itself.
My mother also was very strong, was never sick until she, too, came
down with diabetes.
My two brothers, Abelio and Tanny, and my sister Annie fought with
diabetes but ultimately lost their battle largely due to lack of
education and awareness of how the disease would affect their lives and
not willing to change their eating habits.
Tanny recently passed away due in part to the fact that he could no
longer afford all the necessary treatment to keep his diabetes at bay.
He is not only a victim of diabetes but of the high cost of health care
as well.
My brother-in-law, Ted Dominguez, was also a victim of diabetes. Ted
was a great athlete back in his day, always in great physical shape.
His lesson to us is that anyone, regardless of age, weight or physical
condition, can get diabetes. He eventually went through dialysis and
ultimately ended up losing his life.
Also, a former staff member of mine who has been a close friend for
many years, Daniel Hernandez, is a testament to us and to many other
folks. He worked for me because he needed coverage for diabetes. He
left my office after 2 years and became an independent consultant. He
came back, however, and approached me one day and told me that the only
reason he was willing to come back to work was to qualify for health
care benefits that he would not be able to receive otherwise.
It was their fight and their example that opened my eyes to the
horrid realities and difficulties of this disease and the need for
education and awareness about diabetes and ultimately to introduce this
resolution.
However, a great diabetes success story and a perfect example to
prove that diabetes can be beat is Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia
Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor was diagnosed and has lived with type 1
diabetes since the age of 8 years of age. Due to carefully monitoring
her condition, she fought the disease head-on and continues to be a
great example of someone who can live with diabetes. She will soon not
only be the first Latina to become a Justice on the Supreme Court, but
also the first Latina with type 1 diabetes.
Another example of a remarkable type 1 diabetes patient is Sara
Rodriguez. Sara is a constituent of mine, a rising junior at Rancho
Cucamonga High School, a straight A student, and letter winner in
basketball, volleyball, and track. In order for Sara to lead as normal
a teenage life as possible, she must test her blood sugar levels eight
to 20 times per day, every day. She will never outgrow her disease and
will require care and medication for the rest of her life. She is a
very brave and courageous young woman whose fight and determination
should not only be an example to diabetes patients everywhere, but to
anyone facing adversity.
On behalf of all of the other young people like Sara Rodriguez,
Congress recently reauthorized the special diabetes program. This is a
wonderful example of the government's commitment to cure diabetes for
people like Sara and the millions of others who live with the disease
and its complications. This program funds $150 million a year in type 1
diabetes research and is aligned with the goals of this resolution to
keep us on the path towards a cure for diabetes.
Yet another great example of a person living a healthy life with
diabetes is Roque Martin, the grandfather of Matt Gomez, one of my
interns, who has been instrumental in assisting with this resolution.
Roque was diagnosed with diabetes over 25 years ago and continues to
live a healthy life even at the age of 78. He eats rights and checks
his blood sugar level three times a day and is a great example, along
with Sara and Judge Sotomayor, for all diabetes patients that with
proper care, diet and exercise, one can survive with diabetes.

[[Page 18513]]

That is why it's so important to pass this resolution, which I
introduced in the hopes of bringing awareness to those lucky enough to
not have to face the disease firsthand, or through the fight of a loved
one.
It takes a small, but a critical, first step to help raise awareness
about diabetes for not only the Latino community, but for all Americans
and all individuals impacted with diabetes.
But, also, it's a giant step for those individuals that have suffered
from diabetes for many years and lack the ability to tell their stories
firsthand, along with families and immediate caretakers of diabetes
patients, who oftentimes suffer the impacts of the disease more so than
the patient themselves.
Diabetes is a disease that can, and does, affect anyone: Democrats,
Republicans, black or white, Latinos, Asians, American Indians, all
nationalities. The alarming statistics regarding diabetes are on the
rise. With the greater scope of the health care debate, there is no
better time to raise the awareness for a preventable disease than right
now. And there is no better time than right now to stress that no
diabetes patient should be denied health care coverage because of their
preexisting condition.
For these reasons, I ask you to stand with me and fight against
diabetes and pass this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 69.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from California on his
leadership on this bill, building a bipartisan coalition to bring it to
the floor under suspension. I want to recognize the 23.6 million
Americans that suffer from diabetes. Diabetes can lead to serious
complications and premature death, but people with diabetes can take
steps to control the disease and lower the risk of complications.
The Centers for Disease Control has stated that progression to
diabetes among those with pre-diabetes is not inevitable and that
studies have shown that people with pre-diabetes who lose weight and
increase their physical activity can prevent or delay diabetes and
return their blood glucose levels to normal. Through regular exercise
and a steady diet, Americans can get to a healthier state of living and
avoid diabetes, and that's what we're trying to raise awareness about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from
Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green), also an outstanding basketball player.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Res. 69, which recognizes the increased rates of diabetes in the
Hispanic community and calls for increased research to combat and
prevent the high rates of diabetes in Hispanics.
And I want to thank my good friend Joe Baca for sponsoring this
resolution and also for the compliment. I think you're the first person
in history who ever said I was a good basketball player. Thank you,
Joe.
According to the Office of Minority Health, Mexican Americans are
twice as likely as non-Hispanic whites to be diagnosed with diabetes by
a physician. They have higher rates of end-stage renal disease caused
by diabetes, and they are 50 percent more likely to die from diabetes
than non-Hispanic whites.
Mexican American adults are two times more likely than non-Hispanic
white adults to have been diagnosed with diabetes by a physician. In
2002, Hispanics were 1.5 times as likely to start treatment for end-
stage renal disease related to diabetes, compared to non-Hispanic white
men. In 2005, Hispanics were 1.6 times as likely as non-Hispanic whites
to die from diabetes.
In our district, it is predominantly Hispanic. We have a large number
of individuals with type 2 diabetes, which is often referred to as
late-onset diabetes. Because of this, many individuals in our district
have diabetes-related complications, including illnesses such as foot
problems and amputations, kidney failure that may lead to chronic or
end-stage renal disease, blindness, numbness and loss of sensation in
the legs, and heart attacks and strokes.
However, type 2 diabetes is preventable with a good diet and
exercise. It is important we have targeted educational campaigns in the
Hispanic community to help combat the diabetes epidemic.
I would like to commend the Latino Diabetes Association and other
diabetes research groups for their work in educating the Hispanic
community on diabetes-related issues. Groups like these are crucial to
the reduction of diabetes in the Hispanic community.
I would also like to extend my support towards designating July 2009
as Latino Diabetes Awareness Month to help raise awareness of the high
rate of diabetes in Hispanics.
Through education and prevention and wellness programs we can
drastically reduce the number of Hispanic individuals with diabetes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BACA. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. This is probably the most important part,
Mr. Speaker.
That is why this Congress needs to pass comprehensive health care
reform that covers everyone so we can deal with the diabetes epidemic
in our Hispanic community, our African American community and also in
our low-economic community, because we can deal with this if we push
the envelope back to deal with it before it gets to be where people
start losing their legs.
Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Broun).
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I'm a medical doctor. I've treated diabetes for 3\1/2\
or more decades. I congratulate my good friend Joe Baca for bringing
this issue to the forefront because it is extremely important for all
Americans, not just only the Latino community that he's focusing on
here. I've seen many patients in my overall medical career that are
Latino, as well as blacks and Caucasian and people from all ethnic
groups. It affects everybody no matter who their forefathers, what
their skin color is, and I congratulate Mr. Baca for bringing this
forward.
God tells us in Hosea 4:6, My people are destroyed for lack of
knowledge. And as a medical doctor, I've tried to instill knowledge
into my patients over the years, and this, of course, is what this
resolution is all about, and I do congratulate the gentleman for
bringing it forward because we do have a problem with people being
knowledgeable about diabetes and the effect that it has upon them,
their families, their longevity.
Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness in the adult population.
It leads to many health problems. It leads to heart attacks and
strokes. It leads to peripheral vascular disease.
As I sat here listening to Mr. Baca, I recalled an elderly black
gentleman who came to see me as a patient that I diagnosed as having
diabetes, and I started talking to him about diet and exercise and
those types of things. Well, he didn't take care of himself, in spite
of all my warnings and all of the consequences that he was headed
towards. He wound up having a foot cut off, and he had that leg cut
off. I kept talking to him. His blood sugar was continuing to be
extremely high. Wound up having a second leg cut off, and eventually he
had both arms and both legs removed, and he was sitting in a wheelchair
when he finally got the message and started controlling his diet,
taking his medications as prescribed, and we finally got his blood
sugar in good control.
That's a sad story. I've seen many, many patients over the years that
have developed renal failure, which is what diabetes leads to. It leads
to the nerves in people's legs dying so that they have no feeling in
their legs so they can get cuts or even the simplest little puncture or
a cut on their foot may lead to gangrene that leads to amputation,
maybe even lead to what we call in medicine septicemia, which is where
you have bacteria in your bloodstream, and it can go to your heart and
it can

[[Page 18514]]

affect the valves in your heart. Septicemia itself can lead to death,
by itself.
Diabetes afflicts many of our population, and it's sad that people
don't have the knowledge of what that disease will lead to.

{time} 1715

That's why I congratulate Mr. Baca for bringing this forward, and I
do support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, when I was practicing medicine in rural south Georgia, I
had a small automated lab in my office down there, and Congress passed
a bill called the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act. My lab was
totally automated. I had quality control to make sure that the results
were absolutely accurate so that when I checked a patient's blood
sugar, I would know what it was to know if they had the potential for
prediabetes or whether they had frank diabetes. I would do a fasting
blood sugar that would help me diagnosis their condition.
Well, Congress passed CLIA, the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act,
that closed my lab and every single doctor's lab in this country.
Closed our labs. Eventually, I got my lab back up after I jumped
through the hoops that were required by the legislation, by the
regulatory burden placed on me and all doctors in this country.
Prior to CLIA, a patient would come in and I would take a history and
physical and would suspect that they may have diabetes. Some patients
would get a family history of diabetes, and so I would do a screening
test of a fasting blood sugar.
I charged $10 for that test, Mr. Speaker. After CLIA shut me down, I
had to send patients over to the hospital. The hospital was charging
$35 for the same test. Once CLIA came along, it actually increased, and
I got my lab opened back up, I had to charge $35, but the hospital, I
think, went to $75 for the very same test.
The point I want to make here is this regulatory burden on the health
care industry markedly raised the price for that one test. What we see
across the health care industry when government gets involved in health
care decisions, such as it did with CLIA, it drives up the cost for all
of us.
As a physician who used to be a preferred provider for Medicare
patients--I'm not now, for many reasons--but as a preferred provider, I
could not see many patients, as I did previously, for free. Many, many
patients, poor patients, people that had no insurance would come into
my office, and I would see them for free. I have literally given away
hundreds of thousands of dollars of free health care provision in my
office; give free tests, free screening for diabetes, for many
conditions. But under current Federal law, physicians who accept
Medicare cannot do that. That makes no sense, Mr. Speaker.
It is so today because of Federal regulation. Congress passed HIPPA,
the Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act. That has cost the
health care industry billions of dollars and has not paid for the first
aspirin to treat the headaches that it's created. And it was totally
unneeded.
Mr. Speaker, the point I'm trying to make is the American people need
to know that the more the Federal Government gets into the health care
business, the more regulatory burden is placed on physicians and
hospitals, the higher the cost goes.
In the non-stimulus bill we put a chunk of money, a huge chunk of
money, for something called comparative effectiveness research. What
I'd like my colleagues and the American people to know, Mr. Speaker, is
that this is a process put into place by the Democratic majority.
This could have prevented those 78-year-old people that my friend Mr.
Baca talked about from getting the care that they need because it is
going to be deemed, as some Federal bureaucrat says, it's not effective
comparatively to provide the dialysis for that 78-year-old that Mr.
Baca was talking about. It's not going to be effective to try to
prevent the blindness. It's not going to be effective to provide care
to people who now are getting care. And we're going to have a
tremendous denial or delay of services.
I have said on this floor in Special Orders that this comprehensive
health care bill that's being debated right now in committees and is
going to be presented on this floor eventually--the Speaker wants to
have it come up before we leave for the August recess--it's literally
going to kill people.
Now I have been chastised in the liberal media for making that claim,
but it's going to kill people for this simple reason, Mr. Speaker. And
the American people need to understand this. People are going to be
denied services. They're going to have a marked delay in their being
able to get the screening tests that they need for colon cancer or for
evaluation of their chest pain or they're going to have a marked delay,
as we see in Canada and Great Britain today, of being able to get their
bypass surgery.
So diabetic patients who have developed coronary artery disease and
have angina pectoris and maybe even had a heart attack are going to
have marked delay in being able to get the stints put in or their
bypass surgery that they desperately need, and people are going to die.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SCALISE. I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I have seen patients over and over again with
these consequences of diabetes.
Mr. Speaker, I've given away hundreds of thousands of dollars of my
services over my career. I want people to have access to health care--
but they do today. EMTALA requires every emergency room in this country
to evaluate and treat everybody who walks in. So the question of access
is not a true question to debate today.
We hear about 47 million people. The numbers keep growing by the
Democratic side. The American people need to understand that a lot of
those people are illegal aliens who have come here illegally. I
understand why. They come here for work, for their families. And I feel
for them. But they have still broken the law.
American citizens are going to be denied treatment, denied x-rays,
denied their coronary bypass surgery, denied their dialysis, and all
these things because of this comprehensive health care plan that's
being shoved down the throat of the American people. This is not the
proper way of doing it.
CBO just last week said it's not going to lower the cost of health
care. CBO just last week said it's not going to put people in the
insured category. CBO last week said it's going to cost at least
750,000 jobs in America.
The more government gets involved in the health care business, the
higher the cost goes, the less efficient it is, and the Democratic plan
is going to destroy the quality of health care.
The American people, Mr. Speaker, need to stand up and say ``no,''
and say ``yes'' to a health care plan that makes sense, that lowers the
cost of care for all Americans.
Mr. BACA. First of all, I appreciate some of the comments that my
colleague, the doctor from Georgia, ended up making. And it is about
knowledge, education, and awareness, and it's about preventive, because
preventive is really the key to saving money. Once you do the early
detection, early prevention, then we could save a lot of lives on
account of treatment, because in his statement he indicated many of the
people that he treated--those are people that I recognize in terms of
my own personal family that lack that kind of knowledge, that kind of
awareness, and did not follow the doctor's orders in terms of what they
should have been doing to preserve their life. That's why it's very
important that we create this kind of legislation to recognize diabetes
awareness for all America, because it impacts all of us.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCALISE. It's important that we continue working to find the
causes and the treatments, education, and make sure that we are
researching properly to find cures for diseases like diabetes.
The broader question of health care reform--I think my friend from
Georgia did a really good job of talking

[[Page 18515]]

about the challenges and the concerns that so many over on this side
have of this proposal that's before us. Not here in this bill, but
being debated here in this Congress in these coming weeks, this week,
last week, this proposal to have a government takeover of our health
care system.
I think it shows that while there are definitely ways to approach
this in a bipartisan fashion, where there are many areas of health care
reform that many of us agree need to be made to improve outcomes, to
improve access, to focus on that narrow group of people who don't have
access to care.
I think the real danger is going down the road of a government
takeover where government literally is interfering in the relationship
between a doctor and their patient, as this bill would do, the bill
that's been filed by the administration, by some of the members of this
Democratic leadership.
I think there's real problems, and we can only look at the neighbors
that have gone down the same road. Look at Canada. Canada has a
government-run health care system. Many people with the means from
Canada come to America to get good care. The same thing in England.
There was a tragic story in England, which has a government-run
system. Just yesterday, there was a young man, a 22-year-old, who died
because he was not allowed to get a liver transplant. ``He did not
qualify for a donor liver under strict NHS rules.'' His own mother
said, ``These rules are really unfair.''
They have a government-run system that's very similar to the proposal
that's being pushed by the President to have this government takeover
of health care.
We actually had an amendment in committee last night in the Energy
and Commerce Committee that would have prohibited a government-run
system from having a bureaucrat interfere in the relationship between a
patient and their doctor. Unfortunately, our amendment was defeated.
So clearly it shows that a government-run system would allow a
doctor-patient relationship to be interfered with by a government
bureaucrat here in Washington. That's not health care reform. That's
rationing of health care.
So we need to, hopefully, go back to the table and have a true
bipartisan debate because there are many proposals that are on the
table, bills that have been filed--I'm cosponsor of a number of them
that actually address some of the problems that exist in health care--
to allow companies to pool together so they can get the same buying
power as a small business, as a large business does; to allow
individuals to buy insurance across State lines so they don't have to
rely on their employer if they don't like their employer's plan; and
then also open up and address those areas of waste, fraud, and abuse
that exist. That's what we're concerned about.
I do think it's very important that we raise awareness and education
for diseases like diabetes. And I do want again to thank the gentleman
with the ``good arm'' from California for his leadership on this issue
because he has, I think, taken this issue and approached it in a good
bipartisan way. Hopefully, we can do the same with the broader area of
health care reform.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank both sides for
bipartisan support on this resolution. I look forward to the strong
support.
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. Baca) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 69.
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. BROUN of Georgia. 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} 1730
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:
House Resolution 270, by the yeas and nays;
Senate Concurrent Resolution 30, by the yeas and nays;
House Concurrent Resolution 123, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 1933, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 2632, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

RECOGNIZING ESTABLISHMENT OF HUNTERS FOR THE HUNGRY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 270,
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 Georgia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 270.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418,
nays 1, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 600]

YEAS--418

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern

[[Page 18516]]

McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--1

Moran (VA)

NOT VOTING--14

Bean
Burton (IN)
Deal (GA)
Gohmert
Johnson (GA)
Kirk
Linder
Marchant
McCarthy (NY)
Sestak
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Sutton
Wexler

{time} 1757

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.

____________________

RECOGNIZING BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). The unfinished
business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in
the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 30, 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 Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) that the House suspend the
rules and concur in the concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 30.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 2, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 601]

YEAS--421

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--2

Paul
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--10

Burton (IN)
Gohmert
Kirk
McCarthy (NY)
McMorris Rodgers
Scalise
Sestak
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
left in the vote.

{time} 1803

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the concurrent resolution was concurred in.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page 18517]]

____________________

RECOGNIZING CONTRIBUTIONS OF JOHN WILLIAM HEISMAN TO FOOTBALL

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. 123, 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 Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 123.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423,
nays 0, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 602]

YEAS--423

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Cooper
Gohmert
Kirk
McCarthy (NY)
Obey
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Sestak
Simpson
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes left
in the vote.

{time} 1810

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.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 596, 597, 598, 599, 600,
601 and 602 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea.''

____________________

A CHILD IS MISSING ALERT AND RECOVERY CENTER ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1933, 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 Georgia (Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1933.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 417,
nays 5, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 603]

YEAS--417

[[Page 18518]]

Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--5

Broun (GA)
Flake
Paul
Rohrabacher
Shadegg

NOT VOTING--11

Cooper
Gohmert
McCarthy (NY)
Radanovich
Rangel
Ryan (WI)
Sestak
Simpson
Slaughter
Speier
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes left
in the vote.

{time} 1816

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

KOREAN WAR VETERANS RECOGNITION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2632, 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 Georgia (Mr. Johnson) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 2632.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 604]

YEAS--421

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman

[[Page 18519]]

Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Bilbray
Cooper
Ellison
Lewis (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
Paul
Radanovich
Ryan (WI)
Sestak
Simpson
Sires
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes
left in the vote.

{time} 1823

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 602, 603, and
604, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on all.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

____________________

LIM POON LEE POST OFFICE

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3119) to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco, California, as
the ``Lim Poon Lee Post Office''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3119

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIM POON LEE POST OFFICE.

(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San Francisco,
California, shall be known and designated as the ``Lim Poon
Lee Post Office''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Lim Poon Lee Post Office''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.

General Leave

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, as chairman of the House subcommittee with
jurisdiction over the United States Postal Service, I am pleased to
present H.R. 3119 for consideration. This legislation will designate
the United States postal facility located at 867 Stockton Street in San
Francisco, California, as the ``Lim Poon Lee Post Office.''
Introduced by the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi of California, on
July 7, 2009, and reported out of the Oversight Committee on July 10,
2009, by unanimous consent, H.R. 3119 enjoys the strong support of the
entire California House delegation.
Born in Hong Kong in 1911, Lim Poon Lee and his family immigrated to
San Francisco, California, when he was only 8 months old. Following his
distinguished service as a United States Army counterintelligence
specialist during World War II, Mr. Lee received his undergraduate
education at the College of the Pacific and his Juris Doctor at the
Lincoln University School of Law.
Mr. Lee would then go on to serve his beloved San Francisco community
through his longtime service as a social worker, juvenile probation
officer, and as a writer for the monthly Chinatown news magazine,
Chinese Digest.
In 1966, Mr. Lee achieved further distinction when he was selected by
President Lyndon Baines Johnson for appointment as the postmaster of
San Francisco. Notably, Mr. Lee's appointment at the time was the
highest Federal appointive post ever held by a Chinese American.
Mr. Lee's subsequent 14-year tenure as the postmaster of San
Francisco was marked by his dedicated and successful effort to increase
the hiring of minority and disabled persons, as well as the
inauguration of an alcohol recovery program for post office employees.
During his later years, Mr. Lee continued his admirable commitment to
public service through his service as a Methodist chaplain and his
membership on the boards of several community organizations, including
the Chinatown YMCA, the Chinese American Civil Council, and the
Chinatown Community Service Organization. Additionally, Mr. Lee was
well known in San Francisco as the master of ceremonies for the city's
annual Chinese New Year parade for several years.
Regrettably, Mr. Lee passed away in 2002 at the age of 91. Madam
Speaker, let us honor this dedicated public servant and distinguished
Chinese American and postal employee through the passage of this
legislation to name the San Francisco Chinatown Post Office in his
honor, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3119.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 3119 to designate the facility at the
United States Postal Service located at 867 Stockton Street in San
Francisco, California, as the ``Lim Poon Lee Post Office.''
Born in 1911 in Hong Kong, Lim Poon Lee moved to San Francisco with
his family when he was just 8 months old. The son of a laundry
operator, Mr. Lee went on to college, graduate school, and law school
after serving as a U.S. Army counterintelligence specialist during
World War II.
He often told stories about serving in Japan and how he was the only
U.S. Army representative there who spoke Japanese, Chinese, and
English. His multilingual mediation skills helped to quell a riot
between Chinese POWs and their Japanese captors when news of the
Japanese surrender came through.
After serving in World War II, he continued mediating and became a
social worker and juvenile probation officer.

{time} 1830

Mr. Lee was also very much a community activist and worked with the
Chinese community, World War II veterans and the Democratic Party. In
addition to working as a campaign organizer for many local Democrats,
Mr. Lee was also a founding member of the Chinese American Democratic
Club, an organization that played a key role in securing rights for
Chinese Americans.
For his tireless efforts in the San Francisco community, in 1966, Mr.
Lee was appointed Postmaster of San Francisco. At the time, it was the
highest Federal appointive post ever held by a Chinese American.
Though Mr. Lee once said his only experience with the U.S. Postal
System was ``walking up to the window and putting down a nickel for a
4-cent stamp,'' Mr. Lee mastered the nuances of his new position.
During his 14-year tenure, Mr. Lee greatly increased the hiring of
minority and disabled persons and even started an alcoholic recovery
program. Best said by retired California State senator John Burton,
``By the time Lim finished with it, it looked like the face of San
Francisco, with Asian, African American, Latino and female workers.''
Perhaps most notable was Mr. Lee's establishment of the post office at
867 Stockton Street in the heart of Chinatown in 1977. Recently, this
post office celebrated its 30th anniversary, and fittingly, recognized
Mr. Lee for his significant contributions.
Sadly, Mr. Lee did not live to see this celebration. He passed away
at the age

[[Page 18520]]

of 91 on June 7, 2002. Though his life ended, his legacy remained and
is felt far beyond the post office at 867 Stockton Street. The
executive director of the Chinese American Voter Education Committee
reflected on Mr. Lee's life: ``At a time when there were few role
models, few political leaders, Lim Poon Lee was someone Chinese
Americans could look up to.''
In recognition of Mr. Lee's contributions to his community and the
city of San Francisco, let us now recognize his many years of service
by naming the post office he established in San Francisco, California,
as the ``Lim Poon Lee Post Office.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield such
time as she may consume to the gentlelady from California, the Speaker
of the House, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
commend him and the ranking member for bringing this resolution to the
floor about a great personality. It is such a cause of celebration for
all of us in San Francisco to see Lim Poon Lee so recognized on the
floor of the House of Representatives. Thank you both for your kind
words about him.
Those of us who knew him and worked with him take great joy in the
celebration we have here today. And I also rise in support of the
legislation to commemorate the life and the achievements of Lim Poon
Lee, the first Chinese American postmaster in the United States.
Today, the House has an opportunity to honor Postmaster Lee's
lifetime of public service and proud patriotism by naming the post
office in the heart of San Francisco's Chinatown as the ``Lim Poon Lee
Post Office.''
As has been mentioned, Lim Poon Lee came to these shores from Hong
Kong as an infant. Like many immigrants, he so loved this country that
he spent his entire life in public service.
During World War II, he served in the U.S. Army as a
counterintelligence specialist. He worked in the public welfare and
juvenile court system in San Francisco. And Mr. Lee served one of my
predecessors in Congress and a friend to many of us here, Congressman
Philip Burton, as a field representative.
In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson appointed Lim Poon Lee the
Postmaster of San Francisco. At the time, it was the highest Federal
appointive post ever held by a Chinese American. In this position, Lee
transformed the face of San Francisco's postal system by increasing the
hiring of women, minorities and disabled postal workers.
In San Francisco, we know the beauty is in the mix, and Mr. Lee
worked to ensure while hiring that the post office look like the rest
of the city in terms of its great diversity. In 1977, Lim Poon Lee
established San Francisco's Chinatown Post Office, the post office
located at 867 Stockton Street. Today we have the opportunity to name
that post office for him.
As we honor Postmaster Lee, we also recognize his family, his wife
Catherine, his children Rosalind, Dorinda, Lynnette and Chesley and his
grandchildren. They helped make his success possible.
As was mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Lynch, Postmaster Lee passed
away in 2002 at the age of 91. His absence is felt throughout San
Francisco. As was also mentioned, he was the master of ceremonies for
the Chinese New Year Parade, a columnist for ``Asian Week'' and a
leader on many distinguished boards and commissions. All who knew him
knew him to be a larger-than-life personality. All who knew Philip
Burton knew that it took such a larger-than-life personality to be his
field representative.
I urge my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the life of the
first Chinese American postmaster, again at the time, the highest
appointive office in the land when appointed by Lyndon Johnson, by
supporting this legislation naming a post office in honor of Lim Poon
Lee. And I thank you, Mr. Lynch, again, for your leadership.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, given this was Speaker Pelosi's bill,
please note that we did take a little harder, closer look. And I'm
happy to report that this is an outstanding American. I appreciate the
Speaker's bringing this bill that is a worthy designation. He is a
great American and somebody I hope our communities across this country
can look up to.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the
committee for bringing H.R. 3119 forward.
I rise in strong support of this legislation honoring the first
Chinese American Postmaster General in the United States, Lim Poon Lee,
by naming a post office after him.
At the time of his appointment, he was the highest ranking federally
appointed Chinese American official. He served the United States
honorably in World War II as a counterintelligence specialist. He spoke
three languages, Chinese, Japanese and English. During his tenure as
Postmaster General, he worked to change the face of the post office by
hiring women, racial and ethnic minorities and the disabled.
Postmaster Lee was a key activist in the fight against the Chinese
Exclusion Act, and during his long career in public service, he served
as a social worker, juvenile probation officer, and preacher, sitting
on numerous community boards and councils. I think it is fitting to
also say that we do look into the background of folks to see if they
should be honored in this way. I think that when we talk about him, it
is obvious that he has contributed quite a bit to his country. But one
more thing that I think we need to understand is that he also was a
victim of anti-Asian legislation in this country. And when he was able
to reach and attain a certain level of responsibility, I think he also
understood this concept of not perpetuating these kinds of behaviors,
but correcting it and making it easier for other folks to be able to
participate in this country. And I think that is why he is recognized
in being able to work with other folks. I guess we call that ``acting
affirmatively in positions of influence.'' I think that he is a great
example of someone who understood how to implement things like
affirmative action and looking at going beyond the arena of comfort in
doing the right thing and extending the conduct and the principles of
the Constitution of this country.
I and other members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus have worked to highlight the accomplishments of and
contributions to American society made by Asian American and Pacific
Islanders.
In this spirit, I thank the Speaker and the other leaders for
bringing forth this resolution and urge my colleagues to rise in
support to honor a pioneering Chinese American who contributed much to
this country.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I simply want to thank Speaker Pelosi for
bringing this bill forward. I thank Mr. Honda for his remarks and the
ranking member for his comments as well. And I ask that all Members
join us in honoring Lim Poon Lee by naming the San Francisco Chinatown
Post Office in his honor.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3119.
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. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

APPROVING RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON BURMA

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 56) approving the renewal of import
restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and

[[Page 18521]]

Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 56

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

TITLE I--APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THE
BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003

SEC. 101. AMENDMENT TO BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF
2003.

Section 9(b)(3) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-61; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by
striking ``six years'' and inserting ``nine years''.

SEC. 102. RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER BURMESE
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003.

(a) In General.--Congress approves the renewal of the
import restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) and section
3A(b)(1) and (c)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act
of 2003.
(b) Rule of Construction.--This joint resolution shall be
deemed to be a ``renewal resolution'' for purposes of section
9 of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

SEC. 103. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

Section 13031(j)(3)(B)(i) of the Consolidated Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)(B)(i))
is amended by striking ``January 31, 2018'' and inserting
``February 7, 2018''.

SEC. 104. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title and the amendments made by this title shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this joint resolution
or July 26, 2009, whichever occurs first.

TITLE II--TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Corporate Estimated Tax
Shift Act of 2009''.

SEC. 202. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

(a) Repeal of Adjustments for 2010, 2011, and 2013.--
(1) In general.--Section 401 of the Tax Increase Prevention
and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (and any modification of such
section contained in any other provision of law) shall not
apply with respect to any installment of corporate estimated
tax which (without regard to such section) would otherwise be
due after December 31, 2009.
(b) Adjustment for 2014.--Notwithstanding section 6655 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986--
(1) in the case of a corporation with assets of not less
than $1,000,000,000 (determined as of the end of the
preceding taxable year), the amount of any required
installment of corporate estimated tax which is otherwise due
in July, August, or September of 2014 shall be 100.25 percent
of such amount, and
(2) the amount of the next required installment after an
installment referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
appropriately reduced to reflect the amount of the increase
by reason of such paragraph.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

General Leave

Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to support this joint resolution which
extends and renews the import ban on products of Burma under the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The joint resolution is
necessary because the troubling human rights conditions in Burma
persist, and thus renewal of the import ban is warranted.
Burma's military junta continues to be one of the world's most
repression and abusive regimes. And while some have voiced concerns
about the effectiveness of unilateral sanctions, Burma remains a major
violator of basic human rights, which is why it is so important to
renew the import ban for another year.
For over 45 years, Burma has been under the rule of authoritarian
military regimes, all dominated by the majority Burman ethnic group.
Not only have these military rulers suppressed democracy, but they have
continually denied basic human rights to their own citizens. The Burma
regime continues to hold Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi under house
arrest. She has been detained for 14 of the last 20 years and is
currently on trial because an uninvited American swam to her lakeside
home in May of this year. Most expect that she will be found guilty of
violating the terms of her house arrest, extending her detention, and
giving the junta an excuse to hold her through next year's elections.
Burma's legal system is a mockery to justice and to democratic
principles. In addition to the wrongful detention and the current sham
trial of Suu Kyi, nearly 2,000 additional political prisoners are being
held, most without ever being formally charged. The military regime
continues the practice of arbitrarily arresting and detaining regular
citizens and pro-democracy activists. This past weekend, at least 50
members of the opposition National League for Democracy party were
participating in the official ceremony marking the death of General
Aung San, the country's independence hero.
These political activists were released later in the day. Other
activists are not so fortunate. They often disappear for days, weeks
and months, and some may never return. In prison they are subjected to
physical abuse, receive little food, lack clean water and are refused
sufficient medical care. They suffer, and so do their families, who may
never discover the fate of their loved ones. But Burma's disregard for
basic human rights extends far beyond its prison's walls. Violence and
ethnic discrimination against children, women and ethnic minorities
continue unabated.
For instance, there have been a number of reports of Burmese soldiers
raping and killing teenage girls of the Karen minority. Those who
commit these despicable acts are rarely, if ever, brought to justice by
this repressive regime.

{time} 1845

Additionally, workers' rights remain restricted; women and girls
continue to be subjected to trafficking for purposes of prostitution;
and children are often forced into military service.
Forced labor is frequently used to support military operations and
infrastructure. Villagers are forced to build and repair military
camps, often with materials they must buy or provide themselves.
It is Burma's suppression of democratic principles such as freedom of
speech and assembly, and the regime's refusal to provide basic human
rights, that leads me to urge my colleagues to extend the ban on the
import of Burmese products for another year.
I commend Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Secretary General Ban Ki-
Moon for their recent statements calling on the junta to end its
oppression, and I hope that nations around the world, and in particular
China and India and the ASEAN member countries, will work with the
United States to pressure the Burmese military regime to embrace reform
and address its troubling human rights record. Secretary Clinton's
attendance at this week's ASEAN summit presents an important
opportunity to renew this work.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 56. Our
Burma sanctions are meant to promote democracy, develop respect for
human rights, and improve living conditions for the Burmese people.
Unfortunately, the ruling junta is still working against, not toward,
these objectives. For that reason, I am in favor of reauthorizing our
overall sanctions program against Burma for another 3 years and
extending import sanctions against Burma for another year.
Burma's regime is one of the world's most oppressive and continues to
oppress democratic movements and humanitarianism. Opposition leader
Aung San Suu Kyi is still being falsely detained by the regime, now on
sham charges. As of April 2009, the regime held an estimated 2,100
political prisoners, more than 150 of whom were recently sentenced to
prison terms of up

[[Page 18522]]

to 104 years. Many of these prisoners were held for nearly a year
without charge and were convicted of offenses relating to the
participation in pro-democracy movements. The regime also jailed three
lawyers representing opposition activists for contempt when the
attorneys merely argued that the trials of their clients lacked due
process. The regime also severely restricts freedom of assembly,
expression, association, movement, and religion.
The Burmese regime does not limit its repugnant behavior to civic
activists. Extrajudicial killings, rape, torture, recruitment of child
soldiers, and forced labor are routine. Moreover, the regime has
actually worked against the interests of its people following the May
2008 cyclone. Due to the regime's practice of applying unreasonable
restrictions to humanitarian assistance to workers, the area the
cyclone hit hardest continues to be in dire need of assistance.
The leaders of the regime will have greater incentive to cooperate
with United Nations diplomatic efforts, their southeast Asian neighbors
in ASEAN, and the Peoples Republic of China if its leaders and cronies
come under targeted economic pressure that denies them access to
personal wealth and sources of revenue. Some Burmese businesspeople
with ties to the junta are now starting to feel the pinch, but there is
a long way to go.
Another reason to reauthorize the sanctions program and extend the
import ban for another year is that this Congress amplified the program
last summer. The expansion eliminated trade in jewelry containing
Burmese rubies and jadeite, even if the jewelry was made in, and
exported from, a third country. It was designed to bring about
multilateral pressure on the regime through the United Nations and the
World Trade Organization, similar to successful legislation on conflict
diamonds.
We are still in the process of assessing the effectiveness of the new
law. The Government Accountability Office will be reporting to us this
fall on the effectiveness of the expanded sanctions and will be making
recommendations for improving administration of the program. It would
be unwise for us to allow the lapse of this sanctions program without
having the benefit of the GAO's research and report.
I view import sanctions with great skepticism and always have, but
these Burma sanctions are crafted to maximize their ability to effect
change. For one, they require the administration to issue annual
reports on Burma that include whether U.S. national security, economic,
and foreign policy interests are being served.
On this point, I note that the administration transmitted this year's
statutorily required report late last night. We're still waiting for
the administration to articulate its overall Burma policy. The State
Department announced it would be conducting a high-profile review of
U.S. policy some 6 months ago, but it's not out yet; and our Secretary
of State will be showing up at ASEAN meetings tomorrow and Thursday
with no new vision.
Perhaps the most critical aspect of the Burma sanctions program is
that they require us to redirect our attention every summer to the
question of whether these sanctions should be continued. They are not
self-executing. We here in Congress must vote to continue them on an
annual basis.
I continue to believe that our greatest hope for effecting real
change in Burma is multilateralism. The whole world, particularly China
and the ASEAN countries, must put real economic pressure on the regime.
I support this resolution because it increases our chance to bring
about this multilateral effort.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York will control the remaining time on H.J. Res. 56 on behalf of the
majority.
There was no objection.
Mr. CROWLEY. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise this evening in support of the Burmese Freedom
and Democracy Act, and let me thank both our friend from Texas for his
comments, as well as my friend from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for his
comments as well with regard to this legislation.
This legislation was first enacted in 2003 under the leadership of
former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and my good
friend, Tom Lantos. Tom spent his life fighting for freedom and
democracy for those who could not fully defend themselves. He is
greatly missed here in the House of Representatives, but his legacy
remains, and I have been proud to help carry on his efforts to secure
democracy in Burma.
Former Chairman Lantos would be pleased that we are considering the
Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act. This legislation will reauthorize
the current sanctions on imports from Burma's military regime for an
additional 3 years, as well as maintain the ban on the importation of
jade and other gems from Burma.
I introduced the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act because we must
show the military regime currently ruling with an iron fist in Burma
that there are consequences for their actions. Burma's military regime
has carried out a brutal campaign against its own people. It has
destroyed 3,000 villages, forced over 1 million people to flee as
refugees, and has used rape as a weapon of war, and has pressed
millions of civilians into forced labor, modern day slave labor.
The junta has also rejected recent diplomatic outreach, which would
have been well received in the global community. Specifically, the
junta refused United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's request to
release political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of
the nonviolent movement for democracy and human rights in Burma.
Not only did the junta refuse Aung San Suu Kyi's release, they even
refused Ban Ki-Moon's request to meet with him.
The Burmese regime must be stopped. If passed, the Burmese Freedom
and Democracy Act will supplement President Obama's actions on May 15,
when he renewed investment prohibitions against the Burmese military
regime that began during President Clinton's term in office.
The United States is not alone in using sanctions as part of a
diplomatic strategy to help promote change in Burma. The European Union
renewed its Common Position on sanctions; and Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand and others have unilaterally imposed their own
restrictions.
Aung San Suu Kyi and the other legitimate leaders of Burma have also
called on the world to impose sanctions on their own country, just as
Desmond Tutu and the leaders of the struggle to end apartheid in South
Africa called for sanctions on South Africa in the 1980s.
We must maintain our sanctions against the junta in Burma, and I call
on all my colleagues to vote for the renewal of the Burmese Freedom and
Democracy Act.
And with that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, we have no further speakers; and
in support of this resolution, I would yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Madam Speaker, at this
point in time, we have no further speakers.
Mr. KING of New York. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H. J.
Res. 56, a resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions
contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, P.L. 108-61. I am
proud to have once again introduced this legislation this year with the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley.
In 2003 Congress passed the Burmese Freedom & Democracy Act,
legislation that I co-authored with my friend, the late Tom Lantos.
President Bush signed this bill into law and we have reauthorized these
import restrictions every year since. The legislation bans imports from
Burma and the issuance of visas to those officials affiliated with the
State Peace and Development Council, SPDC, the military junta that
rules Burma and brutally represses its people. This law also bans U.S.
financial transactions that involve individuals or entities connected
with the SPDC.
These sanctions are critically important to keeping the pressure on
the Burmese junta.

[[Page 18523]]

The government continues to have one of the worst human rights record
in the world and routinely violates the rights of Burmese citizens,
including the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, extrajudicial
killings, arbitrary arrests and detention, torture, as well as slave
and child labor. The Burmese regime has destroyed more than 3,000
ethnic villages, displaced approximately 2,000,000 Burmese people, more
than 500,000 of which are internally displaced, and arrested
approximately 1,300 individuals for expressing critical opinions of the
government. And it continues to detain Aung San Suu Kyi, the head of
the National League for Democracy and the democratically elected leader
of Burma, on bogus charges that she violated the terms of her house
arrest. She is currently on trial and faces up to five additional years
of confinement.
We must continue to stand with the Burmese people and expose the
despicable and reprehensible actions of the SPDC. Sanctions are
critical to putting pressure on the junta. Last year Congress passed
and President Bush signed into law Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act,
P.L. 110-286, which bans the importation of Burmese gems into the
United States and freezes the assets of Burmese political and military
leaders. But we still need others to follow ours and the EU's lead. The
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, and the United Nations
Security Council, UNSC, must impose multilateral sanctions against
Burma's military regime including a complete arms embargo.
Finally, it is my hope that the new Administration promptly completes
its policy review toward Burma, implements all the provisions of the
Tom Lantos Block Burmese JADE Act, appoints a Special Coordinator for
Burma, and supports the establishment of UNSC Commission of Inquiry on
Burma.
I urge adoption of the resolution.
Mr. CROWLEY. I yield back the balance of our time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the resolution, H.J. Res. 56, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

SUPPORTING NATIONAL CHILDREN AND FAMILIES DAY

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 534) supporting the goals and ideals of
``National Children and Families Day.''
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 534

Whereas research shows that a supportive and encouraging
family is critical to raising strong and resilient children;
Whereas strong healthy families improve the quality of life
and the development of children;
Whereas spending time engaging in family activities
supports the development of healthy and well-adjusted
children;
Whereas families are of many compositions and sizes, it is
the strength and support of the family that is essential to
child rearing;
Whereas families play critical roles in the care of
children, and in their children's health care, this is
particularly true for children with special needs;
Whereas mental health plays a central role in child
development, families should be encouraged to cultivate
environments that are safe and secure, supportive, and that
contribute to high-confidence and high self-esteem;
Whereas it is essential to celebrate and reflect upon the
important role that all families play in the lives of
children and their positive effect for the Nation's future;
Whereas the fourth Saturday of June is ``National Children
and Families Day'', a day set aside to recognize the
importance of children and families; and
Whereas the country's greatest natural resource is its
children: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives supports the
goals and ideals of ``National Children and Families Day''.

General Leave

{time} 1900

Over the years, we have learned that the families who provide ethical
and moral guidance are the linchpins of our Nation. We depend on our
families to encourage education, arouse curiosity, and cultivate safe,
supportive environments that contribute to self-confidence.
At this time in history, our youth are increasingly exposed to
undesirable influences and because of that it becomes all the more
important for family units to pull together as a team, listen to one
another, and to work through life's issues.
By spending time engaging in family activities such as volunteering
for community service projects, children can learn that service to
others benefits all those who participate, either those who need
assistance or those who volunteer to serve them. Creating these strong
family environments will ultimately result in a new generation of well-
rounded leaders for our country.
By celebrating National Children and Families Day on the fourth
Saturday in June, the country recognizes the importance of families as
well as our country's greatest natural resource, the children of our
Nation.
I find it interesting that today, July 21, was my mother's birthday.
To be able to ask to speak on this is special to me. She passed away in
1995. I miss her dearly. I would encourage my colleagues to stand up
and support this legislation.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. At this point I would take great pleasure to yield 5
minutes to the lead sponsor of this resolution, the gentlewoman from
Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Chaffetz. I'm

[[Page 18524]]

really excited to be here today to rise in support of my resolution,
House Resolution 534, Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National
Children and Families Day.
On a note, I would just say to Mr. Chaffetz, part of what moved me in
introducing this resolution with my colleague from Michigan, Candice
Miller, was the relationship that I have had with my own family and
parents and grandparents and extended family, recognizing the very
special role that families play in the lives of children and growing
them and nurturing them, and especially in sometimes a very troublesome
world.
I'd like to thank Chairman Towns for the leadership in the Government
Oversight and Reform Committee and for his support of this resolution.
I'd also like to thank all the cosponsors of the resolution from both
sides of the aisle--all of us who recognize the value of families and
the importance to our children. Particularly, the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Miller) herself soon to be a new grandmother, who
understands the role that she has played in her own children's lives
and soon to be in a grandchild's life.
House Resolution 534 brings together a really diverse group of
Members to recognize and celebrate the role that families play in the
development of our greatest natural resource and the future of our
Nation--our children.
National Children and Families Day is an opportunity to recognize the
importance of families in raising children. Families, however they're
defined, improve the quality of life and social development of
children. It's within the family unit that a child first learns how to
interact with others and how to cope with challenges.
Children's early development depends largely on their parents,
extended family, and other caregivers. As such, children thrive when
they're raised in an environment of close, dependable relationships
that provide love, nurturing, security, and encouragement.
All areas of a child's development--cognitive, social, and physical
development--are interconnected. Physically, families play critical
roles in the care of their children, meeting nutritional needs and
keeping them out of harm. Socially and psychologically it's important
to consider how we create an environment that will foster socially
well-adjusted children--one who's in good mental health.
Cognitive development is linked intimately to psychological welfare,
and this forms the foundation upon which future progress is
constructed. These are the things that happen within families.
National Children and Families Day is also a day to celebrate
families. It's a special day to highlight the importance of spending
time engaging in family activities that support the development of
healthy and well-adjusted children.
Families that spend time together help cultivate familial bonds that
lay the foundation for a child's later development, well into
adulthood. It teaches them how to become good parents themselves.
We have worked with the National Children's Museum, which I'm excited
to say will be located in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District that
I represent, just outside of Washington, D.C., and the Association of
Children's Museums to encourage special events and activities that will
highlight the value of spending time together and to celebrate this
annual event.
The local children's museums provided my son and me easy access to
venues where we could spend time together learning to care about and
improve the world. As a single mother, the museums provided us with
excellent exhibits and activities that assisted us in strengthening our
relationship.
While the composition of families has changed over times, families
remain the foundation of our national child-rearing structure and are
critical to raising strong and resilient children.
Today, families range widely from single-parent families, to extended
families, to even extended families that care for children of our
deployed servicemen and women--some of those families where both
parents in fact are deployed and the extended family becomes the
nurturing grounds for those children. We have experiences all across
this country in which family compositions are nurturing and enriching
environments for their children.
We see families and their children every day here in the Nation's
capitol visiting these historic sites in Washington and surrounding
counties. In this context, allow me to share with my colleagues a ``Top
Ten'' places for families and children in the Washington region. You
can find that on Web sites across this country, including the National
Children's Museum.
This resolution will serve to remind us how valuable family
activities are in the lives of children. The joy of participating in
family activities, however small or large, will remain with a person
for his or her entire life.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LYNCH. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. EDWARDS of Maryland. This resolution is designed to reinforce the
value of this investment of familial time with an annual commemoration.
In conclusion, I urge you to support House Resolution 534. This
resolution honors families of all compositions that are based in a
foundation of love and care and in relationships that foster
environments in which children can grow, learn, thrive, and mature.
National Children and Families Day recognizes dynamic families and
their role in successfully raising our country's future.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers at the moment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I just ask all Members to support the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards) and her resolution, and I yield
back the balance of our time.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague,
Ms. Edwards, for offering this important resolution.
This resolution designates the fourth day of June, 2009 as National
Children and Families Day.
Our children are this nation's most important resource, and this
resolution highlights the invaluable role families have in raising
healthy, well-adjusted children. Families come in many different shapes
and sizes, but they all play a critical role in the care and
development of their children.
Research shows that spending time together as a family is critical to
raising strong and resilient kids. And studies have shown, the more
often children eat dinner with their families, the less likely they are
to smoke, drink or use drugs, so we should be in the business of
supporting families.
Early childhood experience lays the foundation for later development,
and the first three years of a child's life are especially important.
Investing resources in children and families will pay large dividends
for our society, not only in increased productivity, but also for more
opportunities for our children to realize their dreams.
We must take it upon ourselves as a society to cultivate loving and
supporting families whenever possible. National Children and Families
Day provides us an opportunity to recognize our responsibility to
foster family environments that nurture the next generation and to
promote a positive environment for families across America.
Lee Iacocca said it best when he said, ``The only rock I know that
stays steady, the only institution I know that works is the family.''
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I also urge the Members to support the
passage of H. Res. 534, and yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 534.
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. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

[[Page 18525]]

____________________

CONRAD DeROUEN, JR. POST OFFICE

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 2972) to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, as the
Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2972

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CONRAD DEROUEN, JR. POST OFFICE.

(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 115 West Edward Street in Erath,
Louisiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Conrad
DeRouen, Jr. Post Office''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office''.

General Leave

Mr. LYNCH. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may
consume. As chairman of the House subcommittee with jurisdiction over
the United States Postal Service, I'm pleased to present H.R. 2972 for
consideration. This legislation will designate the United States Postal
Service Facility located at 115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana,
as the ``Conrad DeRouen, Jr. Post Office.''
Introduced by my colleague, Representative Charles Boustany of
Louisiana, on June 19, 2009, and reported out of committee on July 10,
2009, by unanimous consent, H.R. 2972 enjoys the support of the entire
Louisiana House delegation.
Born on February 12, 1921, Conrad ``Snookie'' DeRouen graduated from
Erath High School in 1937, and subsequently attended Vanderbilt
University, graduating with a master's degree in health and physical
education.
At the age of 21, Conrad DeRouen volunteered for service in the
United States Marine Corps and was commissioned as a second lieutenant
at Quantico, Virginia. Following additional training at Camp Pendleton,
Second Lieutenant DeRouen was deployed to the Asiatic theatre during
World War II, serving with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Division.
In July of 1944, after serving overseas for a few months, Second
Lieutenant DeRouen was involved in the Battle of Saipan in the Marianas
Islands. Regrettably, Second Lieutenant DeRouen was gravely wounded in
the neck by enemy forces and subsequently died from his wounds at the
age of 23.
In recognition of his distinguished service, Second Lieutenant
DeRouen posthumously received the Navy Cross, awarded for extreme
gallantry and risk of life in actual combat with an armed enemy force
and going beyond the call of duty.
As noted by the accompanying citation, Second Lieutenant DeRouen,
despite his wounds, ``gallantly refused to be evacuated and remained
steadfast in his station until he collapsed from pain and blood loss.''
Additionally, the citation noted that, ``By his initiative, courage,
and devotion to duty throughout these hazardous operations, Second
Lieutenant DeRouen upheld the highest traditions of the United States
Naval Service.''
Madam Speaker, Second Lieutenant Conrad DeRouen's life stands as a
testament to the bravery and dedication of the heroic men and women who
have offered the ultimate sacrifice in service to our Nation.
Let us together honor this distinguished Marine through the passage
of this legislation to designate the West Edward Street Postal Facility
in his honor.
I urge my colleagues to join Mr. Boustany, the lead sponsor of this
resolution, in supporting H.R. 2972.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished
colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my friend and colleague from Utah and my friend
from Massachusetts for this courtesy.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 2972, to
designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at
115 West Edward Street in Erath, Louisiana, as the Conrad DeRouen, Jr.
Post Office. I'd like to thank the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee for bringing this bill to the floor.
Today, it's really a distinct honor for me to celebrate the life of
United States Marine Corps Reserve Second Lieutenant Conrad C. DeRouen,
Jr., an extraordinary hero in World War II.
A native of Erath, Louisiana, a small coastal town in my district,
DeRouen graduated from Erath High School, then went on to Southwestern
Louisiana Institute, and subsequently received a master's degree from
Peabody College in Nashville, Tennessee.
He married Marguerite Domingues of Abbeville, Louisiana, and at the
age of 21 he volunteered to serve in the United States Marine Corps.

{time} 1915

While fighting against the Japanese forces in Saipan, Mariana
Islands, on July 3, 1944, Lieutenant DeRouen endured continuous
exposure to enemy fire in order to guide tanks into areas of combat;
and when the communications systems failed, DeRouen seated himself
behind the turret in order to continue the resistance.
In another assault on Japanese forces later on July 8, 1944,
Lieutenant DeRouen, despite being wounded in the neck by shrapnel from
an enemy grenade, refused to leave his post with the 1st Battalion to
seek medical assistance and, instead, continued to fight at his
station. DeRouen eventually collapsed due to pain and loss of blood and
was carried off the field of battle by his comrades. He finally
succumbed to his wounds on his ship and was buried at sea.
Lieutenant DeRouen's actions were an inspiration to the marines he
fought beside and were a contributing factor in the success of the
campaign in the Mariana Islands. Because of his heroic death at the age
of only 23 years of age, he was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for
his bravery in a combat zone, the second highest decorated Medal of
Honor. Today I join the town of Erath in honoring this fallen hero with
the dedication of their post office to the name of Second Lieutenant
Conrad C. DeRouen, Jr. for being the highest decorated veteran in its
history, a real hero and someone we should all honor.
As we honor Lieutenant DeRouen today, we also must recognize our
present-day heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, those who have fallen and
those who continue to fight, and we thank them as well as their
families and the families of all of our troops who put on a uniform.
I now ask my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time,
but I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. It's an honor to stand and rise in support of H.R. 2972
and the great American hero that we know as Conrad DeRouen. I
appreciate bringing this to our attention, and we look forward to
having this post office named after him. It's the least we could do
from a country that's so grateful.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2972.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.

[[Page 18526]]

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

CONGRATULATING NBA CHAMPION LOS ANGELES LAKERS

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 566) congratulating the 2008-2009 National
Basketball Association Champions, the Los Angeles Lakers, on an
outstanding and historic season.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 566

Whereas the Los Angeles Lakers are one of the most
successful and respected franchises in the history of the
National Basketball Association (NBA);
Whereas prior to the 2008-2009 season, the Lakers won 14
NBA championships, with a cast of players that, over the
years, have included NBA greats such as Wilt Chamberlain,
Erving ``Magic'' Johnson, James Worthy, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar,
Shaquille O'Neal, Michael Cooper, Elgin Baylor, A.C. Green,
and other Lakers stars, whose accomplishments were captured
courtside by legendary Lakers sportscaster Francis Dayle
``Chick/Chicky Baby'' Hearn;
Whereas in the off-season, the Lakers' General Manager,
Mitch Kupchak, with the support of the team's owner, Jerry
Buss, maintained the Lakers core of Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom,
Derek Fisher, Pau Gasol, and Trevor Ariza;
Whereas the combination of Bryant, Odom, Fisher, Gasol, and
Ariza, led the 2008-2009 Lakers to a 65-17 regular season
record and the number one spot in the Western Conference
playoffs;
Whereas Ariza first came to fame as a member of the 2002
and 2003 California State Championship teams at Westchester
High School in Los Angeles, California;
Whereas the Lakers entered the NBA playoffs with home court
advantage as a result of the team's regular season
performance and defeated the Utah Jazz in 5 games;
Whereas the Lakers then faced the Houston Rockets in the
Western Conference semifinals, winning in 7 games, with Pau
Gasol scoring 21 points in an 89-70 victory in the deciding
game;
Whereas the Lakers squared off against the high-octane
Denver Nuggets, clinching the series in 6 games, thanks to
the outstanding play of Pau Gasol and Kobe Bryant;
Whereas the Lakers' matchup with the Orlando Magic in the
NBA finals represented a battle between a veteran team, the
Lakers, and a young Magic team, led by Dwight Howard;
Whereas the Lakers won the first 2 games of the finals in
Los Angeles, including a hard-fought Game 2, during which
Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol combined for 53 points, propelling
the Lakers to a 101-96 victory;
Whereas although the Lakers lost Game 3 in Orlando by a
score of 108-104, NBA fans were treated to a 31-point
performance by Lakers guard Kobe Bryant, who played all but 8
minutes of the game;
Whereas the Lakers were able to defeat the Magic in Game 4
despite a 25-point performance by Magic forward Hedo
Turkoglu;
Whereas the Lakers won Game 5 against the Magic by a final
score of 99-86, clinching a historic championship, Kobe
Bryant's first championship without Shaquille O'Neal, Head
Coach Phil Jackson's 10th title as a coach, and the Lakers
organization's 15th championship;
Whereas the Lakers recovered from a devastating loss in the
2008 NBA finals against the Boston Celtics to win the 2009
NBA championship and achieve historic championships for Head
Coach Phil Jackson, and Kobe Bryant;
Whereas the Lakers' Kobe Bryant was presented with the Bill
Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award;
Whereas in addition to the contributions of superstars
Bryant, Gasol, and Odom, strong contributions by Ariza,
Brown, Farmar, Ilunga-Mbenga, Bynum, Fisher, Powell, Vujacic,
and Walton returned the glory that has marked much of the Los
Angeles Lakers franchise history;
Whereas Lakers owner Jerry Buss, General Manager Mitch
Kupchak, Head Coach Phil Jackson, and the entire roster and
coaching staff have joined previous great Lakers teams in
winning the NBA championship; and
Whereas the hustle, team defense, and overall unselfish
play of the 2008-2009 Lakers are emblematic of the tradition
that has been a hallmark of the franchise for more than 63
years, and serves as a model for coaches and players
everywhere: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that--
(1) the 2008-2009 National Basketball Association (NBA)
World Champions, the Los Angeles Lakers, are to be
congratulated for an outstanding and historic season; and
(2) the Lakers, in winning their 15th NBA World
Championship, capped a remarkable, unprecedented single-
season turnaround that captivated basketball fans across
America and around the world.

General Leave

Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I now yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Federal
Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia and on behalf
of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, I am pleased to
join my colleagues, and principally Ms. Waters from the State of
California, in the consideration of H. Res. 566, which provides for the
recognition of the National Basketball Association Champion Los Angeles
Lakers for capturing their 15th NBA championship.
House Resolution 566 was introduced by Representative Maxine Waters
of California on June 19, 2009, and currently has the support and
cosponsorship of 50 Members of Congress, none of whom are from the city
of Boston, courtesy of Chairman Towns. The measure has been considered
and approved by the Oversight Committee and now comes to the House
floor as a means of highlighting the Lakers' successful 2008-2009 NBA
season and their final victory.
Madam Speaker, the Los Angeles Lakers stand as one of sporting
history's greatest franchises. The team was founded in 1946 in Detroit
and moved to Minneapolis where it adopted its name, the Lakers, after
Minnesota's State nickname, Land of 10,000 Lakes. The Lakers relocated
to Los Angeles in 1960.
In the 1980s, the Lakers became one of the NBA's most electrifying
and successful teams, winning five championships with Hall of Famers
Earvin ``Magic'' Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, James Worthy, and Coach
Pat Riley. The Lakers' dominance extended into the 21st century as they
won three consecutive NBA championships from 2000 to 2002.
Thanks to this year's impressive NBA Finals victory over the Orlando
Magic, the Lakers now boast the NBA franchise record for the most wins,
the highest winning percentage, and the most NBA Finals appearances. Of
course, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that my own beloved
Boston Celtics still hold the record for the most NBA Finals
championships. You would think they would have picked someone else to
do this resolution, but I am happy to congratulate a job well done.
Led by Head Coach Phil Jackson, one of the most successful coaches in
NBA history, and Finals MVP Kobe Bryant, the Lakers' road to the NBA
championship was lined with its fair share of challenges. While playing
in the highly competitive Western Conference, the Lakers earned the
conference's best regular season record and were dominant throughout
the playoffs.
For this accomplishment, Madam Speaker, we stand to commend the Los
Angeles Lakers franchise, the players, coaches and, of course, the
diehard Lakers fans on a job well done. I am sure that the Lakers'
championship is an enormous source of pride for the residents of Los
Angeles, the surrounding area, and the great State of California as
well.
In closing, I urge the adoption of House Resolution 566.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I sympathize with the anguish and the

[[Page 18527]]

agony that my colleague from Massachusetts must have in reading and
supporting this resolution. I can only hope that this is truly captured
on film for future use.
I rise in support today, as a Utah Jazz fan, in recognizing a great
accomplishment in the world of sports. What these athletes are able to
do and how they do it is truly remarkable. So I rise in support of H.
Res. 566 to congratulate the 2008-2009 Los Angeles Lakers in bringing
home their 15th NBA championship.
For the Lakers, this was a season of redemption that ultimately ended
in victory and a historic achievement. The conclusion of the 2007-2008
season saw the Lakers experiencing a humiliating 39-point blowout to
the Boston Celtics in game six of the NBA Playoffs, I will remind my
colleague from Massachusetts. From that moment, the storied franchise
made a commitment to redeem themselves and immediately began the long,
arduous process of working their way back to championship glory. One
year later, this long and difficult journey culminated with victory and
established themselves as the standard against which every franchise in
the NBA will be measured.
While the entire Lakers organization can be proud of this team's
accomplishments, the season saw some amazing individual milestones.
Coach Phil Jackson cemented his status as one of the winningest
coaches, not just in the NBA but in all of professional sports,
capturing an unprecedented 11th championship ring. Truly amazing.
Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers, who came to the season as the
league's reigning MVP, coming off a summer in which he helped lead Team
USA to the gold in Beijing, won his fourth NBA title and his first NBA
Finals MVP.
Pau Gasol of the Lakers was selected to his second All-Star
appearance, his first as a Laker, and was the first Spaniard to be on
an NBA title team.
Individual accomplishments aside, there is no question that this team
was just, indeed, that, a team, receiving significant contributions
from a host of role players that made winning this championship
possible.
Shannon Brown, acquired as a throw-in in a midseason trade, played
his way into the playoff rotation and made a number of significant
three-pointers in key playoff games.
Derek Fisher, one of my personal favorites, the old veteran guard who
was slumping his way through the playoffs, emerged in game 4 of the NBA
Finals to hit a game-tying three with 4.6 seconds remaining to push the
game into overtime. He followed it up with a go-ahead 27-footer that
would give the Lakers the lead and the game.
Collectively, this team all season long maintained their commitment
to excellence and mental toughness. They were a reflection of the
entire organization--owner, Jerry Buss; general manager, Mitch Kupchak;
Hall of Fame coach, Phil Jackson--and are a model of excellence; in
other words, they are truly champions.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, at this time it gives me great pleasure to
yield 5 minutes to the lead sponsor of this resolution, Ms. Maxine
Waters.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I am very appreciative of my colleague
from Massachusetts and his leadership on this issue and for recognizing
me to stand as a proud Los Angeleno, joined by 50 other of my
colleagues to congratulate the extraordinary Los Angeles Lakers for
their 2009 NBA championship. This resolution, H. Res. 566, commemorates
the Los Angeles Lakers' 15th National Basketball Association
championship.
Prior to the 2008-2009 season, the Lakers won 14 National Basketball
Association championships with a cast of Hall of Famers and coaches,
which included NBA greats such as Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Earvin
``Magic'' Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal, Pat Riley,
and current Head Coach Phil Jackson.
This season, Kobe Bryant, Lamar Odom, Derek Fisher, Pau Gasol, and
Trevor Ariza led the 2008-2009 Lakers to a 65-17 regular season record
and the number one spot in the Western Conference Playoffs. Not only
did Trevor Ariza help to bring another championship to Los Angeles, he
also attended Westchester High School in my district.
The Lakers entered the NBA Playoffs with home court advantage as a
result of the team's regular season performance, and in the first round
of the playoffs, the Lakers defeated the Utah Jazz in five games to
advance to the Western Conference Semifinals.
The Lakers then faced the Houston Rockets in the Western Conference
Semifinals, winning seven games, and advanced to the Western Conference
Finals where they faced the Denver Nuggets. The Lakers clinched the
Western Conference Finals in six games, thanks to the outstanding play
by Pau Gasol and Kobe Bryant, which closed out the series.
In the NBA Finals, the Lakers matched up with the Orlando Magic, led
by Dwight Howard. The Lakers won the first two games of the Finals in
Los Angeles, including a hard-fought game 2, during which Kobe Bryant
and Pau Gasol combined for 53 points, propelling the Lakers to a 101-96
victory. The Lakers lost game 3 in Orlando by a score of 108-104;
however, Lakers guard Kobe Bryant scored 31 points and played all but 8
minutes of the game.
The Lakers followed their loss in game 3 by winning the next two
games in Orlando to win the 2009 NBA championship. For his outstanding
play during the NBA Finals, Lakers' guard Kobe Bryant was presented
with the Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award and his
fourth NBA championship. Lakers Head Coach Phil Jackson won his 10th
NBA championship as a head coach and his 12th NBA championship overall.
Congratulations to the Lakers players, coaches, and staff on winning
the 2008-2009 NBA championship.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I am confident the Utah Jazz will be
back at some point, but for now, congratulations to the Los Angeles
Lakers. I, too, will be supporting H. Res. 566. Congratulations.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Madam Speaker, I, as well, want to congratulate the Lakers
and the gentlelady from California. I congratulate her on her
resolution and for the victory that it represents.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 566.
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. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

{time} 1930
HONORING THE LIFE OF HARRY KALAS

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 350) honoring the life and accomplishments of Harry
Kalas for his invaluable contributions to the national past-time of
baseball, the community, and the Nation.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:

H. Res. 350

Whereas Harry Kalas, an iconic and beloved sports
broadcaster passed away on April 13, 2009;
Whereas Harry Kalas was born on March 26, 1936, in
Naperville, Illinois;
Whereas Harry Kalas is a 1959 graduate of the University of
Iowa with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Speech, Radio, and
Television;
Whereas immediately following graduation, Harry Kalas
served in the United States Army for two years in Hawaii;
Whereas following his service, Harry Kalas began his
broadcasting career with KGU

[[Page 18528]]

Radio broadcasting games for the University of Hawaii and the
Hawaii Islanders of the AAA Pacific Coast League;
Whereas Harry Kalas was a member of the original Houston
Astros broadcast team in 1965;
Whereas Harry Kalas joined the Philadelphia Phillies
broadcast team in 1971, calling their games for the past 38
years, including 26 years with his great friend and Hall of
Famer Richie Ashburn;
Whereas Harry Kalas had diverse talents, calling University
of Houston football, Southwest Conference basketball, Big
Five basketball, University of Notre Dame football, and NFL
games, throughout his illustrious career as well as providing
voice-overs for NFL films and numerous commercials;
Whereas Harry Kalas broadcast the opening of the Astrodome,
Veterans Stadium, and Citizen Bank Ballpark;
Whereas in 2002, Harry Kalas was the Ford C. Frick Award
Winner, named after the former National League President and
Major League Baseball Commissioner, which is annually
bestowed by the National Baseball Hall of Fame to a
broadcaster for ``major contributions to baseball'';
Whereas Harry Kalas called 7 National League Championship
Series and 3 World Series, being the voice of the 2008 World
Champions;
Whereas Harry Kalas called all of Hall of Famer Steve
Carlton's starts as a Phillie, as well as all of Hall of
Famer Mike Schmidt's 548 homeruns, making the phrase, ``outta
here'', an often imitated but never duplicated signature home
run call well known in Philadelphia and the rest of the
baseball world;
Whereas Harry Kalas was named Pennsylvania Sportscaster of
the year 18 times and was inducted into the National
Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association Hall of Fame in
2008;
Whereas Harry Kalas was a remarkable husband to his wife,
Eileen, and father to his three sons, Todd, Brad, and Kane;
Whereas his son Todd followed him into the field of sports
broadcasting; and
Whereas Harry Kalas, not just as a voice, but also as a
husband, father, friend, and veteran, will be sorely missed
in both the Philadelphia region and the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives honors the life
and accomplishments of Harry Kalas for his invaluable
contributions to the national past-time of baseball, the
community, and the Nation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Schrader). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Chaffetz) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.

General Leave

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I now yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, I am pleased to present House Resolution 350 for
consideration. This resolution honors the life and accomplishment of
Harry Kalas.
House Resolution 350 was introduced by my colleague, Representative
Joe Sestak, on April 21, 2009, and was favorably reported out of the
Oversight Committee by unanimous consent on June 18, 2009.
Additionally, House Resolution 350 enjoys the support of over 50
Members of Congress.
Born on March 26, 1936 in Naperville, Illinois, Harry Kalas graduated
from Naperville High School in 1954 and from the University of Iowa in
1959, after receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in Speech, Radio and
Television.
Following his graduation, Mr. Kalas served in the United States Army
for 2 years, after which he began his distinguished career in
broadcasting by calling baseball games for the University of Hawaii, as
well as the Hawaii Islanders of the Triple-A Pacific Coast League.
In 1965, Mr. Kalas made his major league baseball debut as a
sportscaster with the Houston Astros. Six years later he embarked on
what would become a 39-year Hall of Fame career as a sports broadcaster
with the Philadelphia Phillies, where he was ultimately paired with his
good friend and Phillies' Hall of Famer, center fielder Richie Ashburn.
Nicknamed ``Harry the K'' by Phillies fans, Mr. Kalas originated his
now-famous ``Outta Here'' home run call in the mid-1970s and, as the
nearly 40-year voice of the Phillies, called a number of memorable
Philadelphia and Major League Baseball moments. Among them were the
first games played at the Houston Astrodome, Veterans Stadium and
Citizens Bank Park, also Mike Schmidt's 500th home run, and every one
of Steve Carlton's starts from 1972 to 1986, and, of course, the
Phillies' two World Series championships in 1980 and in 2008.
In recognition of his distinguished career, Mr. Kalas received the
Ford C. Frick Award in 2002 from the National Baseball Hall of Fame,
which actually bestows the award to broadcasters who have made major
contributions to the game of baseball.
However, Mr. Kalas' career was not limited to baseball. In addition
to his work with the Phillies, Mr. Kalas called a variety of notable
sports events over the course of his nearly 50-year career and served
as the longtime voice of NFL films, as featured on the HBO program
``Inside the NFL.'' Mr. Kalas also lent his voice to a number of well-
known commercials and television specials. But most importantly, Mr.
Kalas will be equally remembered as a devoted husband to his beloved
wife, Eileen, and father to his three sons, Todd, Brad, and Kane.
Regrettably, Harry Kalas passed away on April 13, 2009. In honor of
their beloved friend and colleague, the 2009 Philadelphia Phillies can
be seen wearing a black ``H.K.'' patch over the heart of their jerseys,
and Mr. Kalas' famous home run call can currently be heard playing in
Citizens Bank Park after every Phillies homer.
Additionally, the Phillies have renamed their TV broadcast booth the
Harry Kalas Broadcast Booth.
Mr. Speaker, let us further honor this distinguished American through
the passage of this commemorative resolution to honor his life and
achievements.
I urge my colleagues to do so and support House Resolution 350.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield as much time as he
may consume to my distinguished colleague and friend from the State of
Florida, Mr. Rooney.
Mr. ROONEY. Mr. Speaker, you know, I wasn't planning on speaking
tonight, but earlier this evening Mr. Chaffetz informed me that you
were commemorating the life of Harry Kalas. And even though I represent
the 16th district of Florida, as many Floridians, I came from somewhere
else. I was born and raised in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and my
entire childhood could probably be summed up as being a diehard
Phillies fan. And I can remember clearly going down to the Jersey Shore
in the summer times, as so many Philadelphians did. And after being put
to bed at night by my parents, sneaking out behind the couch there was
a table, and I stored an AM radio there, and night after night
listening for hours to the voice of Harry Kalas, the mellow, laid back
voice that so many Phillies fans just came to admire and love. And how
many people listened to that voice for so many hours in the City of
Philadelphia and the Philadelphia region.
He truly will be missed. And you know, I always told people that I
wanted to grow up and be a baseball announcer, and it was because of
Harry Kalas. And somewhere I went off track. But I wanted to take the
time here on the House floor to commemorate the life of Harry Kalas.
And someday I hope to be a baseball announcer and I hope to be as good
as Harry Kalas was.
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his remarks and
adding that personal touch.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers at this time, and I will
reserve.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of H. Res. 350 honoring the voice of the
Philadelphia Phillies legendary broadcaster, Harry Kalas, for his
contributions to the national pastime of baseball, to the greater
Philadelphia community, and to this Nation.
Mr. Kalas graduated from the University of Iowa in 1959 with a degree
in

[[Page 18529]]

Speech, Radio and Television. Upon graduation he was drafted into the
United States Army, and when discharged he began working as a
broadcaster.
He began his 44-year career as a Major League Baseball broadcaster
with the Houston Astros in 1965. Kalas called the first game at
Houston's famed Astrodome.
In advance of the 1971 season, he was hired by the Philadelphia
Phillies. There he would remain for the next 39 seasons, 27 of which
Kalas was paired in the booth with Richie ``Whitey'' Ashburn.
Harry Kalas made many memorable calls while broadcasting for the
Phillies, including every start of Hall of Fame pitcher Steve Carlton's
Phillies career, and Mike Schmidt's 500th home run on April 18, 1987.
Of course, when Harry called the dramatic Schmidt home run, he intoned
the player's full name, Michael Jack Schmidt.
His most memorable call, however, came last October 29 at the
culmination of the Phillies championship run. As the pitcher struck out
the last batter, Kalas' golden voice erupted: ``The Philadelphia
Phillies are the 2008 world champions of baseball.''
He had a number of signature calls, but none was more famous than
``That ball is outta here!'' home run call.
Mr. Kalas' contribution to baseball did not go unrecognized during
his years as a broadcaster. He was inducted into the broadcaster's wing
of the baseball Hall of Fame in 2002, and was named Pennsylvania
Sportscaster of the Year 18 times.
In addition to his work with the Phillies, Kalas was also the voice
of NFL films and called various sporting events over his career,
including Notre Dame football.
Sadly, Mr. Kalas passed away here in Washington, D.C. at Nationals
Park in the visiting team's broadcast booth on the afternoon of April
13, 2009, while doing what he loved, preparing to cover a Phillies
game.
I ask my fellow Members to join with me in honoring Harry Kalas for
his exceptional contributions to baseball and, through that, for his
contributions to the community and to the Nation and people like Mr.
Rooney, who grew up hearing his voice and coming to enjoy that.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, having no further speakers, I do want to ask
all of our colleagues to join with the lead sponsor of this resolution,
Mr. Sestak, in supporting his resolution honoring Mr. Kalas.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 350.
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. BROUN of Georgia. 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.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

____________________

THE DAUGHTERS OF IRAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the women of Iran are standing
shoulder to shoulder in the streets protesting against the rigged,
corrupt Iranian elections. At least that's how it began. Now these
legions of women, mostly wearing black, full-length Islamic dress,
stand in defiance of their government's treatment of women. These women
have shed their blood, suffered the same beatings and imprisonment as
men. Some have sacrificed their very lives.
In America our hearts ache as we watched the video of Neda Agha
Soltan. She was shot by her own government henchmen as she walked
through the streets. She bled to death in that street, a martyr for
democracy in Iran. Neda was only 26 years old, but her voice still
cries from the grave: ``that the people of Iran demand human rights,
equality and freedom from tyranny.''
Young women like a girl named Parsia told reporters, and I quote,
``This regime is against all humanity, more specifically, against all
women.'' She continues, ``Lots of girls and women in these
demonstrations. They're all angry, ready to explode, scream out and let
the world hear their voices. I want the world to know that as a woman
in this country, I have no freedom.''
The women of Iran have a rich history of fighting for freedom. In the
early 1900s, in Persia, later called Iran, Britain and Russia tried to
rule Persia through a puppet government.

{time} 1945

In 1906, the Persian people fought the shah, and became a
constitutional republic. They had a Congress called the Majlis to make
their laws.
American economic expert Morgan Shuster was appointed to that
democratic government in 1911 to organize Persia's finances. At that
time, members of the Majlis were threatened or were bribed by Russia,
with support from Great Britain, to disband that constitutional
government. Shuster wrote in his memoirs about Persian women who armed
themselves and who marched on the Congress.
He writes about those bold, brave women, ``Out from their walled
courtyards and harems marched 300 women with the flush of undying
determination in their cheeks. They were clad in their plain black
robes with the white nets of their veils drooped over their faces. Many
held pistols under their skirts or in the folds of their sleeves.
Straight to the Congress they went.''
These ``Persian mothers, wives and daughters'' dropped their veils
and waved their pistols, saying they had decided to ``kill their own
husbands and sons and leave behind their own dead bodies'' if the
Congress ``wavered in their duty to uphold the liberty and dignity of
the Persian people and nation.''
Because of these courageous women 100 years ago, the Persian Congress
stood firm in their struggle for liberty and freedom for the people.
However, Russian Cossacks marched into Tehran a week later, disbanding
the government by force and executing every constitutionalist they
could find.
History speaks to the courage and bravery of Iranian women, which
goes back for centuries. It is no surprise they are again at the
forefront of the struggle for human rights and dignity in Iran. The
women of Iran are not the property of the government, and should not be
punished because they demand equality with men. These women present a
great challenge for the hard-line government. They are a force to be
reckoned with, and the government knows it.
My grandmother used to tell me that there's nothing more powerful
than a woman who has made up her mind. Let me tell you something, Mr.
Speaker: The women of Iran have made up their minds. They are not going
to take it anymore. Like their sisters in freedom 100 years ago, they
are not going to give into the black-booted thugs who are trying to
steal freedom and human dignity from them. Iran is their country. These
women are no longer going to be treated as second-class people. Woe be
to those who try to stop them. The daughters of Iran have inspired the
world with their bravery. Their cause is righteous. Their actions are
just. May the almighty who rules the universe make them strong and
courageous.
And that's just the way it is.

[[Page 18530]]

____________________

AFGHANISTAN BUILD-UP

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday, I read a column in the
Raleigh News and Observer, entitled ``From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan
2009.'' The column was written by Joseph Galloway, a military
journalist and co-author of a book on Vietnam called, ``We Were
Soldiers Once and Young.''

[From the News & Observer, July 19, 2009]

From Vietnam 1959 to Afghanistan 2009

(By Joseph L. Galloway, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services

Bayside, Texas.--It was just about half a century ago, on
the night of July 8, 1959, that the first two American
soldiers to die in the Vietnam War were slain when guerrillas
surrounded and shot up a small mess hall where half a dozen
advisers were watching a movie after dinner.
Master Sgt. Chester Ovnand of Copperas Cove, Texas, and
Maj. Dale Buis of Imperial Beach, Calif., would become the
first two names chiseled on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial--
the first of 58,220 Americans who died in Vietnam during the
next 16 years.
The deaths of Ovnand and Buis went largely unnoticed at the
time, simply a small beginning of what would become a huge
national tragedy.
Presidents from Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower to John
F. Kennedy to Lyndon B. Johnson to Richard M. Nixon to Gerald
R. Ford made decisions--some small and incremental, some
large and disastrous--in building us so costly and tragic a
war.
The national security handmaidens of those presidents,
especially those who served Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford,
were supposedly the best and brightest that Harvard and Yale
and Princeton could contribute.
Presidents right up to today's like to surround themselves
with such self-assured and certain men, men whose eagerness
to find war the answer to most problems often grows in direct
proportion to their lack of experience in uniform or combat.
This small history lesson can be read as a cautionary tale
to President Barack Obama's team as it oversees an
excruciating slow-motion end of one war, Iraq, and a pell-
mell rush to wade ever deeper into another one in the
mountains and deserts of remote and tribal Afghanistan.
The story grows out of a battle in the very beginning of
the American takeover of the war in South Vietnam in the fall
of 1965 when a defense secretary, Robert S. McNamara, counted
the bodies and the beans and offered his president two
directly opposing options.
In the wake of the Ia Drang Valley battles of November
1965--the first major collision between an experimental
airmobile division of the U.S. Army and regular soldiers in
division strength from the People's Army of North Vietnam--
President Johnson ordered McNamara to rush to Vietnam and
assess what had happened and what was going to happen.
Up till then, just more than 1,000 Americans, mostly
advisers and pilots, had been killed in Vietnam since Ovnand
and Buis. Then, in just five days 234 more Americans had been
killed and hundreds wounded in the Ia Drang. McNamara took
briefings from Gen. William Westmoreland, the top U.S.
commander in Vietnam, and from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge
and assorted spy chiefs and diplomats. Then he flew to An Khe
in the Central Highlands and was briefed on the Ia Drang
battles by then Lt. Col. Hal Moore, who had commanded on the
ground in Landing Zone XRAY in the Ia Drang.
On the plane home to Washington, McNamara dictated a Top
Secret/Eyes Only memo to Johnson dated Nov. 30, 1965. In that
report he stated that the enemy had not only met but had
exceeded our escalation of the war and we had reached a
decision point. In his view there were two options:
Option One: We could arrange whatever diplomatic cover we
could arrange and pull out of South Vietnam.
Option Two: We could give Gen. Westmoreland the 200,000
more U.S. troops he was asking for, in which case by early
1967 we would have more than 500,000 Americans on the ground,
and they would be dying at the rate of 1,000 a month. (He was
wrong; the death toll would reach over 3,000 a month at the
height of the war). ``All we can possibly achieve (by this)
is a military stalemate at a much higher level of violence,''
McNamara wrote.
On Dec. 15, 1965, the president assembled what he called
the ``wise men'' for a brainstorming session on Vietnam. He
entered the Cabinet room holding McNamara's memo. He shook it
at McNamara and asked: ``Bob, you mean to tell me no matter
what I do, I can't win in Vietnam?'' McNamara nodded yes;
that was precisely what he meant.
The wise men sat in session for two days. Participants say
there was no real discussion of McNamara's Option One--it
would have sent the wrong message to our Cold War allies--and
at the end there was a unanimous vote in favor of Option
Two--escalating and continuing a war that our leaders knew we
could not win.
Remember. This was 1965, 10 years before the last
helicopter lifted off that roof in Saigon. It's a hell of a
lot easier to get sucked into a war or jump feet first into a
war than it is to get out of a war.
There's no question that Obama inherited these two wars,
Iraq and Afghanistan, from the Bush/Cheney administration.
But the buildup in Afghanistan and the change in strategy
belong to Obama and his version of the best and brightest.
The new administration has dictated an escalation from
30,000 U.S. troops to more than 60,000, and even before most
of them have actually arrived commanders on the ground are
already back asking for more, and why not? When you are a
hammer everything around you looks like a nail.
Some smart veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan, on the
ground now or just back, say that at this rate we will
inevitably lose the war in Afghanistan; that the situation on
the ground now is far worse than Iraq was at its lowest point
in 2006 and early 2007. They talk of a costly effort both in
lives and national treasure that will stretch out past the
Obama administration and maybe the two administrations after
that.
Obama needs to call in the ``wise men and women'' for a
fish-or-cut bait meeting on his two ongoing wars. Let's hope
that this time around, there's an absence of the arrogance
and certainty of previous generations of advisers. Let's hope
that they choose to speed up the withdrawal of combat troops
from Iraq and get out before the Iraqi people and leaders
order us to leave. Let's hope, too, that they weigh very
carefully all the costs of another decade or two of war in
Afghanistan.
Failing that, they should at the very least begin an
immediate drive to increase the number of available beds in
military and Veterans Administration hospitals and to expand
Arlington National Cemetery and the national military
cemeteries nationwide.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the column's most salient point is its
description of a time in 1965 when Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
presented President Lyndon Baines Johnson with a top secret memo. It
indicated that the United States had reached a decision point with two
available options. The first option was to arrange diplomatic cover and
to pull out of South Vietnam. The second option was to increase the
number of American troops by 200,000, bringing the total to more than
500,000 Americans on the ground.
Regarding this second option, Mr. McNamara stated, ``All we can
possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of
violence.'' I want to repeat that.
Regarding the second option, Mr. McNamara stated, ``All we can
possibly achieve is a military stalemate at a much higher level of
violence.''
From that time when President Johnson chose to escalate and to
continue the war until its conclusion, America suffered 56,000 more
casualties.
Mr. Speaker, President Obama's administration has reached a similar
decision point with regard to Afghanistan. Last month, on June 25 of
2009, I joined Congressman Jim McGovern in offering an amendment to the
National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress which outlines an
exit strategy for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan.
While I regret that this amendment was not approved, I still believe
it's critical for the current administration to clearly articulate
benchmarks for success and an end point to its war strategy in
Afghanistan. The men and women of our military who have served in Iraq
and Afghanistan have done a magnificent job. Many have been deployed
four or five times.
Let's not forget, as General Petraeus has said, ``Afghanistan has
been known over the years as the graveyard of empires. We cannot take
that history lightly.''
That is why it is so important for this current administration to
have an end point to its strategy in Afghanistan. This strategy must be
articulated sooner rather than later so we can avoid going down the
path of other failed empires, and so we can avoid the tragedy and the
mistake of Vietnam, when elected officials in Washington never
articulated an end point or an understanding of what was to be
achieved.
Mr. Speaker, I have Camp Lejeune and Cherry Point Marine Air Station,
Camp Lejeune being a Marine base, and I have Seymour Johnson Air Force

[[Page 18531]]

Base. I've talked to many of all ranks in the Marine Corps. They're
willing to go back and to go back again and again and again, but we're
getting to the point where we're about to break our military. It is
time that the new administration has an end point to whatever we're
trying to achieve in Afghanistan.
With that, Mr. Speaker, before I close, as I do frequently on the
floor, I tell you without pride that I've signed over 8,000 letters in
the last 6 years because of my mistake in giving President Bush the
authority to go into Iraq. So I close tonight by asking God to please
bless our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the
families of our men and women in uniform, and I ask God, in his loving
arms, to hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Speaker, I close by asking three times: God,
please, God, please, God, please continue to bless America.

____________________

WORK WITH THE GOP ON HEALTH CARE REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, The Hill newspaper today reports
that President Obama is pointing his finger at the Republicans, at the
GOP, for the stalled health care bill. The last time I checked, the
Democrats were in control of the House; they have a 60-Member majority
in the Senate, and they control the White House. Clearly, the finger
needs to be pointed in a different direction or needs to be reeled in.
I wonder who the President will blame next for double-digit
unemployment and for a doubled national debt. We were promised that the
Democrats' $1 trillion stimulus experiment would immediately create
jobs and that unemployment would not rise above 8 percent, but in June
alone, almost a half a million jobs were lost. This has driven
unemployment to its highest level in 26 years.
Where are Democrats going to point their finger on that one, Mr.
Speaker?
What happens when the $646 billion energy tax that the leadership in
this House has rammed through raises energy costs on every American
family by over $3,100 and when this energy tax is seen in home utility
bills and at the gas pumps, costing up to 7 million Americans their
jobs? They're going to lose their jobs. Which direction will the
President then point his finger, Mr. Speaker?
When the administration's multitrillion-dollar health care experiment
is shoved down our throats before August, costing, as the CBO says,
more than 750,000 jobs, I ask again: Which direction will the President
point his finger?
The bottom line is that, instead of playing the blame game, I urge
congressional leadership and this administration not to ignore the
recent deficit and the unemployment news. I urge them to scrap this
multitrillion-dollar government health care experiment and takeover. I
urge them, instead, to work with us Republicans. Work with us across
the aisle to develop a health care plan that helps small businesses
create jobs instead of taking away jobs and one that gives Americans
better access to lower insurance costs. Work with us to rein in
spending and to rein in this egregious, outrageous Federal debt. Work
with us to institute meaningful reforms that will truly stimulate the
economic growth and that will create jobs for all Americans and that
will not just create more bureaucracy. Work with us, Mr. Speaker, Madam
Speaker, Democratic colleagues. Work with Republicans.
We are accused by the Democrats of being the Party of No, n-o, but
Republicans are the Party of Know, k-n-o-w. We know how to create jobs
and how to stimulate the economy. We know how to lower the costs of all
health care expenses for Americans all across this Nation. We know how
to help small businesses by leaving dollars in their pockets, by
cutting their tax base and by giving them the money they need to create
new jobs and to buy inventory. We know how to stimulate the economy by
leaving dollars in people's pockets so that they can invest in their
children's futures and in their children's college education funds, so
they can pay off credit card debts, so they can buy new cars and buy
new homes. Those are the things that will create a stronger economy.
The Republicans have presented alternative after alternative to the
Democrats' plan, but our plans are being quashed by the Democratic
leadership, and won't see the light of day. It's not fair to the
American people that their Representatives are shut out of the debate.
Mr. Speaker, we need to return to regular order. We need to go
through what historically has happened in this House so that we have
appropriations bills that are presented here with an open rule so that
Members can present their amendments. We need to go through regular
order, and we need to stop bringing big bills to this floor through the
suspension process where they don't have any vetting in the committee
process. We need to return to regular order and to go back to what this
country was founded upon, and that's freedom and democracy.

____________________

THE PRESIDENT PROMISED

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the President over the past few
days has been telling the American people, Trust me. This health care
plan we're talking about is going to be a great thing for America. It's
not going to cost Americans a lot of money. It's going to provide
better quality of care, and nobody will be left out.
So I decided to go through what the President has promised on other
occasions just to see if he deviates from his plans when it's more
convenient for him. For instance, let's just go through some of the
things he has promised.
He said Americans and the Members of Congress would get 5 days to
read bills that were going to affect the American people. We've had
bills that we didn't get until 3 a.m. in the morning that were 1,100-
pages long, and we had to vote on them that very same day. There's no
way to read 1,100 pages of legalese and have them understood in just a
few hours.
He said no lobbyists would be in his administration. There are
lobbyists, a number of them, in his administration. He said no taxes on
those making under $250,000. That's not true. We've already levied
taxes on people making under $250,000.
He said no earmarks and no pork-barrel projects. In the omnibus
spending bill which he signed recently, there were 8,000 pork-barrel
projects in that bill. He said there was going to be openness in the
health care debate. There has been not a great deal of openness, and a
lot of it has been conducted behind closed doors. He said the people
were going to see almost every aspect of it because he was going to
have roundtable discussions throughout the entire debate.

{time} 2000

He said he was going to cull spending and there would be no new taxes
on people under $250,000. This is the highest amount of spending since
World War II. There's been $1.4 trillion in new taxes. He said he was
going to cut each budget of each cabinet by a hundred million dollars.
That has not yet been accomplished. He said he was going to try to
block and oversee the problems with the TARP plan, that $700 billion.
He said there would be no Big Government, but there's been a takeover
of the auto industry, the financial industry, the energy industry, the
health care industry, and it's the largest budget in history that he
proposes.
He said that he would allow people to withdraw from their 401(k)
accounts without any penalty if they were unemployed and having a
difficult time. That was not in the stimulus bill. He said there would
be a $3,000 tax credit for every person hired by business. That was not
in the stimulus bill.
And then, of course, we come to the health care plan. He said this
plan is going to be very good for America, and

[[Page 18532]]

I want all of my colleagues to take a good look at this plan of the
Democrats' health care proposal which the President supports. All of
the white spots are new agencies that are going to be making
determinations about people's health care. It looks more like a roadmap
that's been messed up. You can't figure it out. You have to go from
here over to there to get health care, and it's going to cost a great
deal of money.
In fact, the plan is supposed to cost, we believe, between 1 and 3
trillion dollars, that's 1 and 3 trillion dollars that we don't have
that's going to have to be raised through tax increases and fees, and
this is going to be part of it. They're going to end up taxing
everybody for this health care plan.
And finally, this is going to result in about 4.7 million jobs lost,
because when small business in America has to pay for this
conglomeration of health care, they're going to have to cut back on
employment of their employees, and a lot of those jobs will probably go
overseas.
This is a terrible thing for America right now. And the reason I
bring all of the things up that the President has promised, he's
promising the American people a very good health plan. Trust him,
everything is going to be fine. There is nothing to worry about. And
yet it's going to cost so much money, it's going to cost rationing of
health care, and it's going to cost everybody in this country and the
future generations a great deal of money that we don't have. And I
think that is a heck of a legacy to leave to our young children and our
posterity.
I want to end by reading what was in the Wall Street Journal on the
front page: Congress' chief budget scorekeeper casts a new cloud over
Democrats' efforts to overhaul the Nation's health care system, telling
lawmakers Thursday that the main proposals being considered would fail
to contain costs.
They say it will, but this article and this man says it will not. It
will not contain costs, one of the primary goals, and could actually
worsen the problem of radically escalating medical spending.
I hope everybody in the House is paying attention to this.

____________________

THE WESTERN CAUCUS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, today, 134 Republicans came here to
the floor and spoke for 1 minute each about the issue of jobs and where
they had been, for, indeed, we were promised that there would be jobs
that would be created and saved if we simply passed a stimulus bill and
didn't take the time to read it like a couple of others we did.
Unfortunately, the reality has not been quite the same. In fact, this
is basically the report card that we came up with.
This administration said that if we quickly pass that huge stimulus
bill, there would be some unemployment but it would only be 8 percent.
In fact, the dark blue line here is what they said would be the
recovery path of our economy. They said if we didn't do that, we would
follow a trajectory of the light blue line and actually have 9\1/2\
percent unemployment. That is a difference of 3 million workers being
out of a job if we took the time to actually read the bill and think
about it.
The sad part is, though, after 5\1/2\ months, the trajectory line is
actually the red dots there, which means we are far exceeding anything
that was projected whether we did the stimulus or didn't do the
stimulus. In fact, you can arguably say that we might have been better
off not doing anything at all.
The Vice President was correct when he said that this administration
totally misread the economy. Nonetheless, Speaker Pelosi and President
Obama have teamed together to put up the largest budget, and we're
still in the process of voting for it. We are on track now, Mr.
Speaker, of actually spending $4 trillion in this year's Congress. We
are spending money like it was Monopoly money with the possible
exception that you can't pass go and you don't get $200 every time you
do it.
To put this kind of concept in place, at $4 trillion, we would be
spending $1 billion every 2.2 hours. To put it in perspective again, if
you tried to pay off $4 trillion, that means every single household in
America would have to cough up 35 grand to cover it. And the problem
that we have with that is simply we don't have that kind of money lying
around, whether we spent it or not. In fact, we will be predicted to be
in a deficit. CBO scores this year's deficit at $1.85 trillion. That's
the amount of money we'll spend that we have absolutely no funds for.
Now, you can see on this chart, back there at the turn of this
century, we actually had a surplus. You can notice when 9/11 hit we
went into deficits. Those grey lanes are the deficits run up by the
big-spending George W. Bush--at least, he was accused of that. What we
have over here is what we have been spending ever since. The light red
lines are the estimates of the Obama administration. The dark red lines
are the estimates of our Congressional Budget Office, and they predict
that this year it's $1.85 trillion that we will overspend.
Now, this isn't perhaps the best view. This is only a 1-year shot of
what we are doing as far as our finances. If we actually took a bigger
view of it and tried to find all of the things we still owe, we are
actually at about $11.6 trillion in total debt. And if you add things
like the bailouts and the bank rescues and the auto recovery loans we
have, we're about $23 trillion in debt, which is difficult when our
total gross domestic product is about $14 trillion.
Let me put that in a kind of perspective for you.
When we went to the Moon, if you put the money we spent on that
effort to go to the Moon in today's dollars, we would have spent around
$200 billion. Everything FDR did in the New Deal to try to get us out
of the old original Depression in today's dollars would be about $500
billion. If you took everything we spent on World War II, that's about
$4 trillion. Today, we are spending, in real dollars, $4 trillion and a
deficit of almost $2 trillion and a total deficit of $23 trillion of
everything combined. That was not the change that we were promised.
And the proponents of the stimulus package, quite frankly, view its
failure in the fact that we didn't put enough money into it and that
perhaps we should have another stimulus package to spend more money.
The Democrats' solution, quite frankly, is we need to spend more money.
The bottom line, though, is spending money is not the same thing as
creating jobs. There are other alternatives that are out there.
The Republican Party has introduced almost a thousand bills of
alternatives that have never been allowed to be discussed on this
floor. We had one called the no-cost stimulus bill. It was estimated
that it would grow our gross domestic product by $10 trillion and
create 2 million jobs and would cost the taxpayers exactly nothing and
has still yet to be allowed to be discussed on this particular floor.
Now, we come here today as part of a Western Caucus with the
understanding that much of what we do in the West is a catalyst for us
solving this particular problem in moving our economy ahead.
Unfortunately, this administration, which misdiagnosed what the
stimulus would do, has also misdiagnosed the opportunity that so much
of our public lands have offered to us. It is not an effort to try to
destroy the environment, but there are enough resources we have in this
country that we could create an energy policy that would indeed build
real jobs.
Unfortunately, this administration looks at the gift that it has at
its disposal and instead goes in the opposite direction. It creates an
environmental policy that is aimed at benefiting special interest
groups so that instead of our using our resources to create jobs, we
actually are sacrificing jobs to a false ideology.
In this opportunity today, we are going to be talking about some of
the things this administration is doing

[[Page 18533]]

which actually harms this country and loses jobs when we have a great
opportunity to try and grow jobs if we'd just use the resources that we
have wisely.
I am joined and will be talking with Representative McClintock of
California. He has a unique area that deals with the forest area that
has a chance of actually bringing people together for a benefit that
could grow jobs, help the economy, help the environment, and for some
reason, we simply are not doing it.
We will be joined later by Representative Thompson of Pennsylvania;
not necessarily the West, but he has the same situation with a forest
in Pennsylvania and, once again, the administration's misuse of land
policy is costing people jobs and should not be there.
I'm joined by my good friend Representative Broun from Georgia. He's
going to try to put all this into some kind of perspective at the same
time as we deal with this issue and other issues, all of which have the
same problem of costing us jobs. And hopefully there will be a few more
Members who will join us before this hour has concluded.
And I'd also like to talk about a couple of policies that this
administration has started which, in reality, costs American jobs when
we should be producing jobs with the resources that we have.
But, Mr. Speaker, with that said, I would like, first of all, to
yield some time to Representative McClintock of California, who has a
wonderful opportunity of creating jobs in California, desperately
needing the jobs, desperately needing the income, but is faced with a
unique barrier that's going to be extremely difficult to overcome.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. I want to thank my colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop)
for yielding and for organizing this Special Order for the House
tonight and for the attention he's devoted to the suffering in my
district that's been caused by the lunatic fringe of the environmental
movement that now seems to be so firmly in control of our national
policy on public lands. At this point, we're not just trying to create
jobs, we are desperately trying to stop losing them because of these
policies.
You know, a generation ago we recognized the importance of proper
wildlands management. We recognized that there is a balance between the
environment and the economy and that both can thrive through proper
policy. We recognize that nothing is more devastating to the ecology of
a forest than a forest fire, and we recognize that public lands should
be managed for the benefit of the public. We recognize that in any
living community, including forests, dense overpopulation is simply
unhealthy.
So we carefully groomed our public lands, we removed excessive
vegetation and gave timber the room that it needed to grow. Surplus
timber and overgrowth were sold for the benefit of our communities. Our
forests prospered and our economy prospered, and forest fires were far
less numerous and far less intense than we see today.

{time} 2015

But that was before a radical ideology was introduced into public
policy--that we should abandon our public lands to overgrowth and
overpopulation and, in essence, to benign negligent. We are now living
with the result of that ideology. Forest fires that are fueled by
decades of pent-up overgrowth are now increasing in their frequency and
their intensity and their destructiveness. One victim of this
wrongheaded policy is the environment itself. Recent forest fires in my
region make a mockery of all of our clean-air regulations. And anyone
who has seen a forest after one of these fires knows that the
environmental devastation could not possibly be more complete. But
these policies also carry a tremendous economic price. Timber is a
renewable resource. If it is properly managed, it is literally an
inexhaustible source of prosperity for our Nation. And yet, my region,
which is blessed with the most bountiful resource in all of California,
has literally been rendered economically prostrate by these policies. A
region that once prospered from its surplus timber is now ravaged by
fires that are fueled by that surplus timber.
Which brings me to the story of the townspeople of Quincy and El
Camino, both little towns in the northeast corner of California. Two
months ago, 150 families in each of those little towns received notice
that the sawmills that employ them must close. The company made it very
clear in its announcement that although the economic downturn was the
catalyst, the underlying cause was the fact that two-thirds of the
timber that they depended upon had been held up by environmental
litigation. Despite the recession, they still had enough business to
keep those mills open--and to keep these families employed--if the
environmental left had not cut off the timber that those mills depended
upon.
Now bear in mind that the population of the town of Quincy is about
400 families--the greater Quincy area about 1,250 families. We are
talking about pink slips going to 150 of those families. And they are
not the only ones who have lost incomes. Many more jobs were lost
indirectly--the folks who drive the trucks and sell the supplies--all
lost their jobs as well. This occurred despite the groundbreaking work
of a local coalition called the Quincy Library Group that forged a
model compromise between environmental, business and forest management
advocates a decade ago. That work had culminated in legislation called
the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act. It was
adopted 11 years ago in this very Chamber by a vote of 429-1. This
consensus agreement provided for sound and sustainable forest
management practices that in turn would support both local jobs and
healthier forests. As Senator Feinstein, a Democrat, pointed out at the
time, every single environmental law, including the National
Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, would
be followed as this proposal is implemented. Yet despite a model
compromise that produced a model law, the will of the Congress, the
livelihoods of hundreds of innocent families, and the fire safety of
scores of mountain communities is being challenged and undermined by a
constant stream of litigation from groups purporting to support the
environment. And I say ``purporting'' because, as the Web site of one
of those groups declares, their number one policy goal is to
``eliminate commercial logging on all public lands in California.''
Their policy is not to protect the environment. Their policy is
deliberately to destroy commercial enterprise.
We held an informal hearing in Quincy after the mill closures that my
friend from Utah was kind enough to join us for. And the stories we
heard at that hearing were absolutely heartbreaking. It is a story of
how, despite the law, this constant litigation, which is ultimately
rejected by the courts, has nevertheless delayed implementation of the
Forest Recovery Act until the mills collapse, and that's what we are
dealing with today. They know they don't have to win the litigation,
all they have to do is draw out the process. And they have done that
very successfully until 150 families in Quincy and another 150 families
in El Camino lost their jobs. We then held a formal hearing here in
Washington, and from that hearing, Congressman Herger has introduced
his bill, H.R. 2899, to prevent frivolous litigation from continuing to
destroy those jobs and continuing to impede the fire safety measures
that are so vital to the preservation of these forests. I'm in the
final stages of preparing legislation to at least grant litigation
relief for the land that is actually within the Quincy Library Group
territory defined in the legislation. And of course these bills are
already being attacked by the same radical groups responsible for the
litigation and regulation that is destroying these jobs, destroying
these families, destroying these communities and destroying our
forests. These extremists even oppose the salvaging of timber that has
already been destroyed by forest fires or by disease. Now think about
that. Trees that are already dead cannot be salvaged because of
lawsuits filed by these extremist groups. And

[[Page 18534]]

again, they know if they can simply delay the salvage for 2 years, the
trees decay to the point where they can't be recovered. And they would
rather let those trees rot on the ground rather than to be removed and
salvaged to provide jobs for families and lumber for homes and revenues
for the national Treasury.
The economic suffering this is now causing is immediate, and it is
acute. But an even more ominous effect is placing at risk our mountain
communities and our national forests to intense wildfires made possible
because overgrowth is no longer being removed. As one forester told me,
those trees are going to come out of the forest one way or another.
They are either going to be carried out, or they will be burned out.
When the excess timber was carried out, we had a thriving lumber
industry that put food on the tables and clothes on the children of
thousands of working families throughout northern California. More
importantly, we also had much healthier forests and far fewer and
milder forest fires than we suffer today. This isn't environmentalism.
True environmentalists recognize the damage done by overgrowth and
overpopulation and recognize that the role of sound forest management
practices is to maintain healthy forests. We are also watching them
systematically shut down our public land for public use and public
benefit. And every time a little town like Quincy or El Camino is
strangled to death by these policies, it has a ripple effect throughout
the Nation. Our Nation loses tax revenues, commerce withers, the price
of raw materials rises and public resources are diverted to provide
economic relief. And our forests suffer as well.
But there's one infinitely higher cost that I haven't mentioned yet,
and that brings me to the tragic news that I must impart to the House
tonight. There is a raging fire in the Shasta/Trinity National Forest
as we speak right now. It's called the ``Backbone Fire.'' About 2 hours
ago, I received word that a young man, Thomas Marovich, Jr.--20 years
old--from the little town of Aiden in my district, was killed this
afternoon fighting that fire. And every time a little town like Aiden
mourns the loss of a promising young man like Thomas Marovich, Jr., it
is not only a tragedy--if preventable, it is an outrage.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the great silent majority of
Americans to rise up against the most radical elements of the
environmental movement that now seem to control so much of our public
policy and to demand that we restore our public land for public use and
public benefit, and that we restore the sound forest management
practices that once minimized the forest fires that are now again
destroying communities and taking lives.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Would the gentleman yield for one moment?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Absolutely.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This is truly a tragedy that you have mentioned
that is taking place in your home district. As I was out there in the
community of Quincy, I was noticing that the concept that they said is
that if they could thin those forests, they could minimize the risk of
forest fire as well as using the resources that would be pulled out to
create jobs at the same time.
Could this fire have at least been mitigated if we had gone through
these practices of thinning the forest under proper procedures that
would help the forest as well as help the economy at the same time?
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Well, that is why for many years we thinned those
forests, to reduce the intensity of those forest fires, to reduce the
number of those forest fires, and from that excess timber, we provided
a thriving economy throughout that region. And by the way, we also
provided a tremendous revenue stream to the national Treasury because
that timber is on land owned by the people of the United States. So we
had healthier forests, and we had a healthy economy. Both have been
imperiled by those policies. And then to that you have to add the
tragedy of the human loss of those heroic young men like Mr. Marovich
who gave his life today to try to stop those fires, which are much more
intense today and much more numerous today than they were a generation
ago when we practiced sound forest management practice.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. To the gentleman from California, I thank him for
joining us here. I know that we all send our sympathy to the community
and especially the family at this time of their particular loss in a
heroic effort to try and help and save others.
Part of the problem that the gentleman from California is talking
about is because of the land that is owned by the Federal Government.
On this particular chart, everything that is in red is owned by the
Federal Government. You will notice that it has a preponderance in the
West. And where Mr. McClintock is talking is that area in California
surrounded by red. Let's face it. If you live in that area that is
surrounded by red, you really don't have a whole lot of options. The
Federal Government controls what opportunities you do or do not have.
Let me give you just one example in my State of a different area. And
I want to introduce you to a young man by the name of Mr. Pitchforth.
Mr. Pitchforth is a young and exciting school teacher who got 12-, 13-
and 14-year-olds excited by geography and history, which by itself
should give him some kind of hero's medal. This September, though, he
is not going to be teaching school. He is not going to be teaching
school because the district in which he lives is one of those red areas
in which this administration unilaterally and arbitrarily decided to
take 77 oil and gas leases and suspend them, take them off the market,
making them unusable. And in so doing, took neighboring and abutting
pieces of property owned by the school trust lands and make them also
sterile for this time period. The schools lost money. And in so doing,
their reaction was to fire the first teacher hired. Mr. Pitchforth is
not there anymore. You see, this doesn't deal with just people who are
working in oil and gas. There's collateral damage from every one of our
decisions that the government makes. Mr. Pitchforth isn't working
because of a choice he made, but because of a choice some bureaucrat
back here in Washington made. And it's not fair. It's not fair for him.
It's not fair for his family.
There's other collateral damage that takes place in this area where
the Secretary of the Interior decides to pull these leases and suspend
these leases for the rationale that the Bush administration did them
too quickly. Actually, the Bush administration took 7 years to go
through the process. I guess 7 years was not enough time to decide
whether we were doing the right thing or not, at least that is what the
Secretary said. Let me read to you a letter from, once again, somebody
who is not directly employed but who is in the transportation business
that does the shipping of materials both to and from those potential
sites. As he wrote the county commission where he lives, Let me applaud
your efforts in trying to get the message to our Interior Department
that their actions have caused great harm to the economy of our area
and to individuals living there. At the end of 2008, we employed over
230 truck drivers and leased 204 trucks. Our payroll was $12 million a
year. But since the first of the year, we have laid off 36 trucks and
47 drivers. There are now 47 families without income nor payroll
benefits associated with them. Our overall payroll is down 29 percent,
projected now to be down to $9 million by the end of this calendar
year. On a personal note, my son who has worked in the oil fields for
the past 8 years has never been unable to find employment until now. He
has been off now for 3 months and is getting very discouraged. My
daughter is a single mother of two growing boys. She has been
struggling to make ends meet with the economy the way it is now and
seems she has lost hope of ever finding employment elsewhere. To Brett
who is the field manager who was laid off on July 1, July 13 he and his
wife had a baby. To Jody and Jeff, two truck operators, Jody lost his
truck because he couldn't make payments after he was laid off because
of the decision made by the Secretary here in Washington. Curtis was a
craftsman and a cabinetmaker who lost his job due to the cancelled

[[Page 18535]]

contracts once they realized these leases were taken off the table.
Travis, a construction worker, husband, father of two children, laid
off, once again, as soon as a bureaucratic decision here in Washington
was made that had unintended consequences far beyond what was
anticipated when a bureaucrat in Washington decided to make decisions
on what should take place on the ground out there and took the
opportunity of solving our problems and creating problems and taking
jobs away from people.
We talk about the numbers unemployed. Each of those unemployed
numbers is a face and a real person with a real family and a real
issue. I would like to yield some time to the gentleman from Georgia to
try and put this in perspective. And then we will be joined by two
other members of the Western Caucus.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank you, Mr. Bishop, for yielding me some
time. I was really touched by the faces that you've brought forward to
the American people tonight here on C-SPAN about these people who have
lost their jobs and my good friend Tom McClintock talking about the
National Forest and the mismanagement that is going on because of the
endless environmental wacko lawsuits that are going on there and the
unfortunate untimely death of this young man who was fighting those
fires that probably could have been prevented if we had managed the
forest in a better way, in a correct way, according to normal
silviculture practices.

{time} 2030

Civil culture means forestry practices to the best extent for
economic purposes, and I thank both of you for bringing the face of
people to this discussion tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I'm a medical doctor, and I've seen the faces of a lot
of patients who have struggled with the cost of health care expenses,
the cost of health insurance and medication and hospital bills. In over
3\1/2\ decades of practicing general medicine in rural south Georgia
and now northeast Georgia, I've literally given away in my services
several hundred thousand dollars of my services if I had charged for
them.
We have a proposal that I call ObamaCare that's being debated here in
the Halls of Congress. Mr. Speaker, the director of the Congressional
Budget Office last week said that if ObamaCare is passed it's going to
cost 750,000 people their jobs across America. Three-quarters of 1
million people are going to be put out of work just because of passing
a bill that supposedly is going to make everybody covered by health
insurance.
But the Congressional Budget Office director also said that even in
the next 10 years not everybody would be covered. Let me say that
again, because what we keep hearing from the Democratic side is we're
going to cover everybody; everybody's going to have health care. Well,
everybody does have access to health care today. Federal law requires
it. What everybody does not have is health insurance.
But our Democratic colleagues want to give free health insurance to
illegal aliens, and that's what ObamaCare does. It gives free health
insurance to illegal aliens. The 12 million, 15 million illegal aliens
in this country who are criminals have entered this country illegally.
Virtually all of them have illegal documents. They've broken many
Federal laws. They're criminals. And my Democratic colleagues want to
give them free insurance. It's going to cost 750,000 American citizens
jobs to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this House considered a bill just a few weeks ago that
they, my Democratic colleagues, call cap-and-trade. I call it tax-and-
trade or tax-and-cap because it's about taxes. It's about revenue. We
hear over and over again that it is going to create all these green
jobs. Well, it will create some green jobs. In fact, I saw a friend, my
next door neighbor in the hall over in the Cannon House Office
Building, bring in a chart where he's going to talk about green jobs,
and it indeed will create green jobs, but what you're not being told is
what happened to Spain.
Our President has lifted up Spain as being the model of what we need
to do on these green jobs and environmental policy. Well, about a
decade ago Spain put into place a similar piece of legislation as our
tax-and-trade bill that's languishing over in the Senate, and I hope
the Senate will defeat it. But in Spain, for every single green job
that was created, 2.2 other jobs cost. In other words, 2.2 people were
put out of work for every one person put to work by these green jobs
that tax-and-trade is going to create.
I know my Democratic colleagues can add and subtract. I don't want to
accuse them of not doing so, but if you subtract 2.2 from 1, you get a
minus 1.2, and that's exactly what's going to happen. If the American
people don't stand up and say ``no'' to tax-and-trade, or tax-and-cap,
whatever you want to call it, and tell the U.S. Senators, Mr. Speaker,
that this is going to be disastrous and it's going to cost American
jobs and to defeat it over there in the Senate, there will be 2.2
people put out of work for every 1 person that is put to work.
I already said the Congressional Budget Office says 750,000 people
are going to lose their jobs because of ObamaCare, but it's going to do
many other things, too, that are disastrous. ObamaCare is going to
insert a Washington bureaucrat between every patient and their doctor,
and the Washington bureaucrat is going to be making, Mr. Speaker, every
single individual in this country's health care decision. The patient,
the patient's family won't be able to make those decisions. The doctor
won't be able to make those decisions. It's going to be a Washington
bureaucrat that makes that decision.
We were told by our Democratic colleagues it's all about lowering
costs; but just last Friday the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office said that it's not going to rein in the cost of health care. In
fact, it's going to cost more money.
So let me get this right. It's going to cost more money to put in
place ObamaCare; it's going to take decisions away from patients and
their family and their doctor about making health care decisions; and
it's going to put a Washington bureaucrat in charge of those decisions,
and that Washington bureaucrat is going to say whether a patient can
get needed treatment, surgery, x rays, MRIs, or not.
We already know in countries such as Great Britain and Canada that in
those socialized medicine, government-run programs, that the death
rates for cancer overall are much higher than here in the United
States. Women who get breast cancer in Canada and Great Britain,
roughly 50 percent of them are dead after 5 years. Prostate cancer, the
same, roughly 50 percent of people that are diagnosed with prostate
cancer in those countries, or 60 percent, are dead in 5 years. Here in
the United States, it's over 90 percent are still alive. So what's
going to happen here? Our death rates are going to go up for all
cancers.
Just today, we had a bill here on the floor that I talked about that
is one to try to encourage people to understand diabetes. As a medical
practitioner, I've treated diabetes for years, and the end result of
diabetes and the reason it's so important to catch it early and to
treat it is that people die at a young age when they have diabetes, a
lot younger than they should if it's treated.
But the thing is, as we ration health care and the Washington
bureaucrat tells patients that they can't get the tests that they need,
they can't get the life-saving coronary bypass surgery or stints and
the procedures they need to help them not die from heart attacks or
from strokes, the Washington bureaucrats are going to say particularly
to the elderly that you can't get the dialysis that you desperately
need because you're old and it's not cost effective, it's not
comparatively effective, and thus, you just must die and not get the
treatment that you desperately need.
So people are not only going to be put out of work but people are
going to be in poor health. We're going to degrade the quality of
health care delivered by doctors and hospitals across

[[Page 18536]]

this Nation because a Washington bureaucrat's going to say ``no'' to
patients and say ``no'' to doctors.
This is going to be disastrous. We're creating a debt and a deficit
that's unprecedented in the history of our Nation. We're going down a
track right now, Mr. Speaker, that every great nation in history has
gone down: Great Britain, Spain, even Rome. We're going down a track of
spending money that we don't have, creating debt that we cannot pay.
We're robbing our children and our grandchildren of their future. They
will live at a lower standard than we live today because of this huge
debt that we're creating, Mr. Speaker, this huge deficit that this
administration is creating.
I hear from our friends on the Democratic side, even just this week I
heard them blame President Bush for the debt and deficit. Well, I blame
President Bush for being a big spender and he was. While I was here
during the tail end of his Presidency, I fought all those big spending
bills. I fought the Washington bailout of Wall Street.
But President Bush was just a piker compared to what this
administration's doing. We're creating unprecedented debt and deficit
that our grandchildren cannot pay. So their standard of living is going
to be worse than it is today.
Mr. Speaker, there are going to be a lot of people put out of work.
During the Great Depression all the spending that FDR did did put some
people to work, but the unemployment rates bounced up and down and
stayed very high.
Mr. Speaker, in my district in Georgia, many counties have over 13
percent unemployment today. I've talked to several managers of plants,
manufacturing plants in my district, that tell me that if this tax-and-
trade bill that the Senate has over here that this House passed, they
are they're going to lock the doors. Those jobs are going to go
overseas because they can't afford to pay the higher energy tax.
Most Americans are going to have a hard time, particularly the poor
and the people on limited incomes are going to have a hard time paying
the higher energy cost.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have stood up over and over again and have
talked about the proposals that we have made, proposals to stimulate
the economy and create jobs; proposals to lower the cost of health care
expenses to all Americans; proposals that would stimulate the economy;
proposals that don't cost our grandchildren their future and, in fact,
will not even cost the taxpayers today any increase in their taxes. But
those proposals are not heard because the leadership of this House and
the leadership of the Senate across the way won't let those proposals
get to the floor to be discussed, and it's not right, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, we're robbing America of its future. We're robbing
Americans of their jobs today. We're going down a track that's going to
put more and more people out of work. It's going to create more
problems for people paying their utility bills, their gasoline, their
home heating costs and things like that. Even with the mandates from
our friends on the Democratic side that they are putting on health
care, it's going to literally lower the income of people who are
working, and it's not right and it's not fair.
Mr. Speaker, it's got to stop. The American people need to stand up
and say ``no'' to ObamaCare, ``no'' to tax-and-spend policies that this
administration, that this leadership in this House and the Senate are
bringing forward because it's going to destroy America.
And I thank my friend from Utah, Mr. Bishop. I see he has a poster
here that we have a lot of these unemployed people in my district.
Praise God that we don't have 14.7 million people in my district out of
work; but more and more people are becoming unemployed, and they're
going to continue to lose jobs in my district in Georgia, and I'm sure
they are in yours in Utah if we don't stop this outrageous spending
that the leadership of this Congress, of this administration, are
doing. We've got to stop it, and it's up to the American people to
demand from their Senators and their Congressmen and this
administration saying ``no'' to this outrageous spending that's going
on.

{time} 2045

I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate Representative Broun from Georgia
for joining us. He provides a unique element to the Western Caucus of
giving a Southern input, which we find so similar to the problems that
we're facing, as well as a medical background. Part of the problems
he's talking about is the reason that the policies we have been
creating as a government is part of the problem why we have 14.7
million unemployed right now.
I'd like to go to the Eastern part of the country, if I could, and
yield some time to Representative Thompson from the State of
Pennsylvania, who also has a similar problem, similar situation, with a
similar heavyhanded result of bureaucratic Washington decisions, and it
has direct impact, so that these unemployed are not just faces, they're
real people.
Then, we will be happy to be joined by Representative Lummis from
Wyoming, who has the same things in her home State as well.
Representative Thompson.
Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I thank my good friend from Utah (Mr.
Bishop) for coordinating this event tonight. I'm very proud to
represent Pennsylvania's Fifth District and am very proud be a part of
the Western Caucus. We have a lot of wonderful natural resources that,
frankly, help to make, Mr. Speaker, make this country strong, and I
believe as a part of our promising future if we use them and use them
wisely.
Federal policies that lead to job losses is a very personal one for
me and many of my constituents in Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional
District. My district is home to Pennsylvania's only national forest,
the Allegheny, or the ANF as we often refer to it--513,000 acres.
The ANF is as special as the district that I represent and has a long
history as an economic and a tourism center for the region. Nearby, in
Titusville, Pennsylvania, Colonel Edwin Drake founded the world's very
first commercial oil well in 1859. The energy industry has been the
economic engine in that region in my district ever since. Now this
includes the ANF.
For 86 years, the forest has successfully operated for multiuse
purposes. These uses include recreation tourism as well as timber
harvesting, oil, and natural gas production. Frankly, before this
forest was formed 86 years ago, it was an oil and gas field.
Since oil and gas has been the economic engine in the region for over
60 years, when the ANF was created, the Federal Government only
purchased the surface rights. This was done intentionally by the
Federal Government in order to leave the mineral rights, meaning the
rights to oil and gas and minerals, in private hands. And for some 85-
plus years there's been a positive working relationship between the
Federal Government, who owns the surface rights, and the private and
oil gas developers, who own the mineral rights.
However, this longstanding and beneficial relationship recently has
been ruptured. Last fall, the Forest Service was sued by three
environmental groups: Sierra Club, the Allegheny Defense Project, and
the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics. The Sierra Club
is based in the Speaker's home district in San Francisco, California.
The Allegheny Defense Fund is based somewhere in Oregon. And the Forest
Service Employees for Environmental Ethics--well, they won't identify
themselves. We don't know.
These groups are attempting to apply the National Environmental
Policy Act, or NEPA, to the permitting processes, which effectively
will shut down energy production in the forests.
Let me be clear, oil and gas production is the major economic force
in the region, and has been since that first oil well was drilled 150
years ago.
Penn State University performed a study and concluded that for every
100

[[Page 18537]]

direct oil and gas sector jobs in northwestern Pennsylvania, 23
industry support jobs are created, with an additional 40 ancillary jobs
in the retail and residential sectors. Want a true economic stimulus
that leads us to energy independence? Let's support that industry.
Again, I can't emphasize enough how important these jobs are to our
region and the local economy.
As a direct result of the lawsuit, the forest service indefinitely
suspended the permitting process for all new oil and gas leases in
January of this year. To make matters worse, the Forest Service
released a settlement this past April that sides entirely with the
environmental groups.
This settlement was reached behind closed doors and was reached with
no industry input. There was no judge, no court that told them to do
this. Applying NEPA was a decision made by the Forest Service and did
not even take into account the people that it would hurt directly and
the most. No court told them to do this, which means that it was a
policy change that occurred within the National Forest Service.
Now, while these environmental groups would like everyone to think
that oil and gas production in the ANF goes unregulated, it's
rigorously regulated by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. And they do a great job. They always have.
Today, I, along with Mr. Bishop and 18 other members of the
Congressional Western Caucus, sent a letter on this topic to
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. The Secretary, unlike some Members
of Congress and environmental groups, knows that the Forest Service is
a part of the Agriculture Department, not the Interior Department.
The bottom line is that Congress and the President have this year
alone spent about a trillion dollars in the name of job creation. Yet,
some within the administration are also actively trying to make policy
changes like this that kill good-paying jobs which have existed for 86
years.
Not too long ago, I was in Bradford, Pennsylvania, on a Sunday
morning, and I picked out a small church to worship in. And at the end
of the service I had a young mom come up to me. She had three little
kids in tow. They weren't very big. The oldest maybe was four years
old.
And she came up to me and she said, You're Mr. Thompson. She said, I
want to thank you for what you're trying to do to stand up for the
right things of making sure that we have the rights to access to
subsurface rights. You see, her husband makes his living working on oil
wells. At that point, he was struggling to find a job and struggling to
be able to support his family because of a policy change by this
administration which attacks the subsurface private property rights.
And that's not right.
I've talked with businesses that have been in the business, have
lived their entire life for generations in the Allegheny National
Forest, that own subsurface rights and have every right for 86 years to
access oil, natural gas, and minerals that they own. And, because of
that arbitrary policy change by this administration, that's been shut
down. And these folks who have been in business for just generations
are no longer able to support themselves.
This type of attack, this type of policy by this administration on
private property owners, it impacts timber workers, it impacts
drillers, excavation companies, businesses, schools, townships, and
families. Frankly, they're all suffering. And they're suffering because
of the arbitrary and devastating policies of this administration on
private-property-right owners.
I thank the gentleman from Utah and I yield back.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. This
clearly shows we are desperate to create jobs and yet we have an
Interior and an Agricultural Department whose decisions are killing
jobs and the ripple effect those jobs have.
I'd like one other illustration of how this is happening. My good
friend, Representative Lummis from Wyoming, one of my favorite elements
about Wyoming is that fact I'm an old schoolteacher. And this chart
clearly shows that the blue line is what Wyoming pays their
schoolteachers. The red line is what Montana pays their schoolteachers.
And the only difference between those two States is Wyoming clearly
realizes what can happen and how much good you can do when you develop
the resources that are there in that particular State.
I yield to the gentlelady from Wyoming.
Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding. The chart
he shows is exactly right. The fact that Wyoming chose to develop its
mining resources and Montana chose a path that retarded the development
of its mining resources is the difference in the teacher salaries, as
pointed out in that chart.
We have been blessed in Wyoming by having low unemployment and it
created an opportunity, until recently, for people from other States
who have suffered job losses to find gainful employment and make a new
life in Wyoming.
A number of families have relocated, especially from Michigan, to the
State of Wyoming, and predominantly the community of Gillette.
Gillette, Wyoming, has become Wyoming's third-largest city and is
growing in a way that brings young families vibrancy, activity, and the
arts and recreation to a wonderful Wyoming community in northeast
Wyoming.
It's brought a lot of new people to Wyoming from Michigan looking for
a new life and looking for work. Many of them came from the automobile
industry and manufacturing industries and mining industries, quite
frankly, that were devastated due to the economic downturn. But they
were able to find jobs in Wyoming, and we're so happy to have them.
Then, along comes Waxman-Markey, a bill that creates a national
energy tax and a bill that creates a tremendous threat, especially to
coal mining jobs.
Jobs in the Wyoming mining industry are high paying. Eighty-six
percent higher than the average wage in the State. The average annual
wage in the mining industry in Wyoming was $73,000 in 2007. It is an
extraordinarily liveable wage in Wyoming.
But, if you look at the total coal mining jobs in the U.S. and the
changes in policy under Waxman-Markey and other bills going through
this Congress, the outlook for those Michigan residents who have
proudly relocated to Wyoming is not very prosperous.
Job losses related to Waxman-Markey, optimistic projections, total
U.S. job loss in 5 years: 14,000 jobs lost in coal mining alone. A
pessimistic number for job losses 5 years from now in coal mining
alone: 35,000 jobs.
Let's project it out because, as you know, Waxman-Markey doesn't take
effect completely until the year 2050, but let's just go out 10 years
and 15 years.
The projected loss in jobs in 10 years due to Waxman-Markey, under
the most optimistic scenario that can be put together: 20,000 jobs lost
in coal mining alone. And the pessimistic number: 67,000 jobs. That's
the entire population of my community of Cheyenne, and then some.
Of course, 20 years out the optimistic job loss in coal alone: 50,000
people. And the pessimistic number: 125,000 people in coal alone. These
are not jobs that can be replaced by green jobs. These green jobs are
not projected to pay 86 percent higher than the average wage in my
State.
Not only is the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the national energy
tax, an attack on coal-producing States around the Nation, but other
bills going through this Congress are having the same consequence.
Let's take, for example, the Interior Appropriations bill that just
passed the House. It had a provision in it that when a company acquires
a Federal lease to mine more coal, they will pay a bid bonus payment.
That occurs now. The problem is, these bid bonus payments are such a
large amount of money that they have been spread out over 5 years so
the companies can borrow less money or use production that they're
currently accomplishing to pay in 5-year increments for those big coal
bid bonus payments.

[[Page 18538]]

Under the Interior Appropriations bill that just passed this House,
they will have to pay that all up front. These are staggeringly large
numbers, in the tens of millions and sometimes hundreds of millions of
dollars.

{time} 2100

Companies in this financial crisis cannot borrow those kinds of
moneys. Consequently, there will be companies that will not bid,
thereby reducing the receipts to the American taxpayer when there's not
competitive bidding for the coal or there may be no bids at all because
no company can borrow enough money to pay the entire 5-year payment up
front.
One little amendment in an enormous bill that has tremendous
consequences to coal mining jobs went through without discussion, and
there are many such amendments in these bills every day that are an
attack on jobs in this country, an attack on jobs in my State. The
attack on jobs in the Appalachian States is unbelievable under the cap-
and-trade bill. If I were in an Appalachian State, I would be even more
concerned than I am for my State of Wyoming, and as the number one
coal-producing State in the country, I am tremendously concerned about
the loss of jobs.
These policies are not good for America. They're not good for my
State. They're not good for the West, and they're certainly not good
for the hardworking people of America.
I thank Mr. Bishop of Utah for allowing me the time to speak this
evening.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming who has so
clearly pointed out how small decisions that we make here still have
enormous impacts. We have seen what this administration has done in an
effort, for whatever reason, to harm the creation of jobs when it deals
with land policy.
This week the Secretary of the Interior decided to have a time-out on
new leases of uranium mining, which will lose at least 1,100 jobs. He
earlier decided to put a halt on the development of oil shale projects.
That could be up to 1 million jobs. It is estimated at 160,000 jobs
that will be lost from the delay on Outer Continental Shelf
development. An effort to stop the timber harvest in western Oregon
immediately costs another 5,000 jobs.
Mr. Speaker, as we look at what we're doing here, it is very clear
that small business and families are struggling today. Republicans have
put forth thoughtful, serious alternatives which have been ignored and
not even discussed. It's also clear that the President's economic
decisions have not produced jobs, not produced prosperity, and simply
have not worked. It doesn't mean that we're out of options. We can
still have a real recovery.
If we emphasize and create an environment that empowers small
business and empowers Americans and we focus on job creation, we stop
the attack on the West and other areas of public lands and the people
who live there and allow them to develop the resources that we have
been given to create real jobs in this country, we can do that. That is
still an option that we have. But we have to do it, and we have to do
it together.
There are a lot of other examples that I would like to go into, Mr.
Speaker, but time does not allow that--maybe at some other time--where
decisions by this administration have actually harmed families and
their creation of jobs. Once again, we have to change directions. That
has to stop.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

COMMUNICATION FROM OFFICE OF ATTENDING PHYSICIAN

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from Justin Cox, Physician, Office of Attending
Physician:

Office of Attending Physician,

U.S. Capitol,

Washington, DC, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: This is to notify you formally,
pursuant to Rule VIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, that I have been served with a subpoena for
trial testimony issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia in connection with a criminal
case now pending in that court.
After consultation with the Office of General Counsel, I
have determined that compliance with the subpoena is
consistent with the privileges and rights of the House.
Sincerely,
Justin Cox,
Physician.

____________________

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Maffei). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. McMAHON. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege and honor to stand here
in the House of Representatives, representing the people of the great
boroughs of Staten Island and Brooklyn in New York for the Freshmen
Energy Hour. I am privileged to be joined by my colleague, as I come
from Hudson Valley in New York, my colleague from the Ohio Valley, the
great John Boccieri, the gentleman from Ohio, who will join me in this
Freshman Energy Hour.
Mr. Speaker, we're here today to talk about the American Clean Energy
and Security Act, which was passed recently by the House, and to speak
to its merits in order to urge the Senate to pass it as well. I sat
here and listened to our great colleagues from across the aisle for
some time this evening speaking on this issue. They conclude that they
hope that the Senate looks upon this bill unfavorably as they criticize
the initiatives of this bill.
I know that my colleague will mention it, but I would just like to
remind them what their former candidate for President in last year's
election, Senator John McCain, said about the cap-and-trade legislation
as recently as February 17, 2009. He said: It's cap-and-trade, that
there will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It's a free-market approach. The Europeans are using it now. We did it
in the case of addressing acid rain--look, if we do that, we stimulate
green technologies. I have great faith in the American industry. This
will be a profit-making business, create jobs. It won't cost the
American taxpayer a thing.
So I am pleased that those who spoke before me from across the aisle
in opposition to this bill referenced the opinion of the United States
Senate. And I am glad that Senator McCain was honest and forthright
enough to admit that this legislation does, indeed, create jobs,
provides for the security of our Nation, and takes care of the
environment as well, and, indeed, it is important for us for our
future.
As we know, the recently passed Energy and Security legislation comes
at a time when inaction will have undue consequences. This
comprehensive energy and clean environment bill is a necessary vehicle
to ensure our future economic and environmental viability in the 21st
century green economy.
I would like to start out by commending the leadership of the House
who brought forward this bill and saw that it was passed. The regional
differences arising from energy-based issues are often quite lofty, but
the leadership did an outstanding job of moving through the legislative
process with consideration for different Members' interests.
Since the bill's passage before the Independence Day recess, many
Members, myself included, have experienced varying degrees of concern
from our constituents, particularly regarding the cost and impact of
the bill to their wallets, and quite a lot of this concern has been
raised because of misrepresentations from our gentle colleagues from
the other side of the aisle as to the aspects of this bill. Together
with Mr. Boccieri, I would like to address some of these concerns and
the pervasive misinformation that has been put out there today and
explain how this information will be a cost-saver for consumers and
homeowners, will cut down on pollution, and will increase our national
security.

[[Page 18539]]

At a time when we are importing increasing amounts of energy from
hostile regions of the world, we cannot afford to go down the path of
energy insecurity. This legislation will redirect us on a path towards
energy independence.
Mr. Speaker, you know, I sat here and listened to our colleagues from
across the aisle this evening and all day long, hundreds of minutes, I
understand, that they spoke about this issue and the creation of jobs
in this country. What I found very disconcerting as a New Yorker is
that they've totally forgotten the issue of national security and how
important energy independence is to this Nation. It's so important to
me, Mr. Speaker, because I come from Staten Island and Brooklyn, New
York, where, on 9/11, over 10 percent of the people who were killed in
the attack on the World Trade Center came from our boroughs, although
we have less than 5 percent of the population in that area.
I remember that day as clear as any other in my life--in fact, more
profoundly. It was a bright, sunny day. And I remember it because I was
involved in my first election campaign that day. It was a primary for
the New York City Council. We were in church at about 9 a.m., as we do
on every Election Day after opening the polls and campaigning a bit.
The police officer who I was with received an emergency call and took
us out and said that something terrible had happened and we have to go
down to the harbor.
When we got down there, we saw the World Trade Center aflame, and the
second plane had just struck. We went back to our office to close down
the election, and as we were there, we saw the horrors of what
transpired on television as the buildings collapsed. I will never
forget it. I will never forget being on the pile the days after and the
bucket brigade. I will never forget seeing President Bush say to our
Nation and to those who lost their loved ones that we will never
forget.
After we closed down the election, we weren't sure what to do that
day, so we went to the local hospital and set up a blood bank to await
the injured people to come back from the site. But as hour and hour
went on, we realized that no one was coming back and the enormity of
the tragedy. I mention this because I think it's so important that our
Nation does not forget the costs of dependence upon nations around this
world for oil who want to see our great American democracy torn down.
Our way of life is an affront to them, and they will do anything to
tear down America.
So when you have this discussion about energy and whatever they want
to call it, let us never forget that this is about energy security
first and foremost. America cannot go on the way it has, relying on
foreign oil from countries who want to tear our country down. Even
though we made a pledge at that time to end dependence on foreign oil,
the chart that I have here will show that just in the last year, in
2008, the amount of oil that we imported from foreign countries was
66.4 percent of our usage. The dollars we spent overseas, $475 billion.
How many of those dollars go to al Qaeda? How many of those dollars go
to terrorists who want to bring destruction and terror to our country
and to our allies' countries around this world?
How dare anyone stand on the floor of this House of Representatives,
this noble and esteemed body, and not talk about this anytime they talk
about energy, anytime they talk about this bill. I consider it an
affront when people misrepresent the facts of this bill for their own
political reasons and not to bring the true facts to the American
people.
Look again at the ways, since the time that the attack occurred, the
way that our dependence on foreign oil, our imports have gone up so
dramatically. We have, indeed, forgotten. We have forgotten those who
we lost that day. We've forgotten our pledge to have security, to have
energy independence, and it is something that this bill will seek to
do.
At this time, I would like to ask my colleague, Mr. Boccieri, to
share with us some of his thoughts from the perspective of the people
of the great State of Ohio.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I thank the gentleman from New York and his
insight and accuracy with respect to this issue and the importance that
it has for our Nation. Now, I must give you this prelude.
I approach this legislation from a very deep perspective that I've
had throughout my life. For the last 15 years, I have served in the
United States Air Force as a C-130 pilot, and I have to tell you that
there is no matter before this Congress more important than the steps
we are taking to create a situation by which our Nation can become
energy independent.
I must tell you that I hail from the Midwest, and I know my friend
hails from New York, but I have to tell you that this bill and this
legislation coming before the Congress is about Midwest innovation and
breaking our reliance on Mideast oil. The pillars of this legislation
are creating jobs, thousands of jobs in our country and hundreds of
thousands of jobs alone in my district in Ohio, the 16th Congressional
District.
The pillar of this legislation is about national security, about
moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. Those two noble causes
right now are a track worth defending right now. I stand here with my
colleagues today to tell you that we must do something. We will be
judged by two measures, Mr. Speaker, two measures: by action or
inaction.
I remember in the 1970s when I stood with my father in line to wait
so that we could fill up for a tank of gas. Back then, back then we had
a Democrat-controlled Congress. We had a Democrat President, but we
didn't have the political will to make this happen. This Congress and
this President are saying, No more. No more to outsourcing our
dependence to foreign petro-dictators, if you will, that don't have the
interests of the United States at stake.
My colleague talked about some of those, and let me just put this
down to you right now. In 2003, a U.S. Department of Defense study
concluded that the risk of abrupt climate change should be elevated
beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern. We
talked about how much oil we've used from overseas. We imported over 66
percent just last year, accounting for nearly 16 percent of all import
spending.
My friends, we must do something. Now, this is not just John Boccieri
saying this on the floor of the House of Representatives. This is not
my friend Mike McMahon from New York saying this or my friend Frank
Kratovil from Maryland suggesting this. Every Presidential candidate
running for the highest office in our country last year said that this
is a matter of national security.
You heard the words of my friend from New York when he talked about
Senator John McCain, who I have great respect for, a man who I flew out
of Baghdad while he was visiting our troops, a man who put his life on
the line for the country. I want the American people and our colleagues
here tonight to listen to this. It's about cap-and-trade.
There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. It's a free-market approach. Let me repeat that. It is a
free-market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the case
of addressing acid rain. We're doing a cap-and-trade program right now
in the United States here that's been in existence for 19 years. Look,
if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies. This will be a
profit-making business. It won't cost the American taxpayer. Let me
repeat that again. John McCain said that it's a free-market approach
and it won't cost the American taxpayer.
Joe Lieberman and I introduced a cap-and-trade proposal 7 years ago
which would reduce greenhouse gases with a gradual reduction. We did
the same thing with acid rain. This works. It works. My friends, this
is about our national security. John McCain and every other
Presidential candidate running for office last year said that it's a
matter of national security.

{time} 2115

The Department of Defense is saying it's a matter of national
security. But

[[Page 18540]]

all of a sudden, our friends here that we have this debate with are
running away from national security. For what, I have no idea.
But I'll tell you this much. This is our opportunity to put America
on a track where we can create jobs in the heartland and in the cities
of great New York and in the suburbs of Maryland. We can create jobs
and we can protect our national security.
After having fought--one last point, Mr. McMahon. After having served
overseas flying wounded and fallen soldiers out of Baghdad, it is very
clear that our presence in the Middle East is about that 66 percent
that Congressman McMahon talked about, because 40 percent of that 66
percent that has come from overseas comes from the Middle East. And
this is the time that we have to act.
Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Boccieri for that passioned
insight on this issue. And as you point out, I talked about the horrors
of our energy dependence on the Middle Eastern countries here on
foreign soil, on our domestic soil and through terrorism.
But certainly, we thank you for your service to our country. And also
it's quite clear that the men and women who are wearing our uniforms
right now fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are doing so, so much so
because we can't get off our addiction to that foreign oil,
particularly from the Mid East, and that's what this bill is about.
We'd like to hear from our equally great colleague from the great
State of Maryland, Frank Kratovil.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Let me thank the gentleman from New York for, first of
all, leading us in this discussion this evening on such an important
topic and, of course, my friend and colleague from Ohio, Mr. Boccieri,
for passion.
I want to follow up on just a couple of things that you had
mentioned, Mr. Boccieri, talking about this issue from a historical
perspective. You know, so many times in this country we talk about for
years and years the things we need to do, and yet when push comes to
shove, we don't always have the political courage to do what needs to
be done. You were speaking about discussions you had with your father.
You know, every U.S. President since Richard Nixon has advocated the
need for energy independence. In 1974, Nixon promised it could be
achieved within 6 years. Gerald Ford promised it could be done in 10
years. And Jimmy Carter pledged to wage the moral equivalent of war to
achieve it. And yet, here we are, in 2009, and for the first time
really we have made steps, really aggressive proactive steps in
reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
I want to read you something that President Nixon said at the State
of the Union address in 1973. Looking at the year 1974, which lies
before us, there are 10 key areas in which landmark accomplishments are
possible this year in America. If we make these our national agenda,
this is what we will achieve in 1974. We will break the back of the
energy crisis. We will lay the foundation for our future capacity to
meet America's energy needs from America's own resources. That was
Nixon in 1973.
Gerald Ford, in 1975, said, I am proposing a program which will begin
to restore our country's surplus capacity in total energy. In this way
we will be able to assure ourselves reliable and adequate energy and
help foster a new world energy stability for other major consuming
nations. We must develop our energy technology and resources so that
the United States has the ability to supply a significant share of the
energy needs of the Free World by the end of this century. President
Ford, in 1975.
So, looking at it from a historical perspective, we have talked about
this for years and years because Presidents in the past have
recognized, and Congresses in the past have recognized, that it is
essential for our own national security that we reduce our dependence
on foreign oil.
In 1970, our oil imports have grown from nearly 24 percent in 1970,
to nearly 70 percent of our total consumption now. Last year alone, the
United States spent $475 billion on foreign oil.
Needless to say, as Mr. Boccieri mentioned, and as you mentioned,
much of this funding benefits nations that support terrorism or, at the
very least, anti-American political extremism. How long should we
continue to provide dollars to nations that seek to destroy us?
And so, although this bill focused also on the issue of climate
change, for me, and I'm sure for many other Members, this issue had
more to do with, from my standpoint, an issue of national security,
reducing our dependence on foreign oil and doing what we should have
been doing back in the 1970s and moving our country forward.
Now, let me say something about our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. Objections have been raised with a number of bills that have
come before this Congress, and arguments that we are moving too
quickly. Some of those arguments I've agreed with. But the key in
moving this Nation forward is not simply to have people that stand in
the way of making progress. Regardless of arguments that they make, if
we were to give as much time as our opponents on the other side of the
aisle would allow, many of them would still object to moving this
country forward.
So we need to find a reasonable balance between some of the
objections that are made in terms of process and yet, at the same time,
make sure that we are not simply standing in the way of progress simply
as a result of being in opposition for whatever we do to move this
country forward.
And with that, I'll yield back to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Kratovil. And those are points
extremely well taken. And you can only wonder whether President Nixon
and President Ford would be very disappointed, having understood how
important this issue is to our national security to have the other side
of the aisle, as you say, really giving out such misinformation about
the effects and particulars of this bill to really scare the American
Nation. And I can tolerate that when it's issues of a more domestic
nature and whether, you know, we should, when it comes to different
types of issues that we vote on on resolutions before the House or
domestic issues.
But when you talk about national security, it really borders on
unpatriotic, in my mind, to use misinformation to scare the American
people at a time when we can really get ourselves off foreign oil.
You know, how many times have we heard about the study from the MIT
economist that, according to the other side of the aisle, will cost
every American family $3,100 under this bill? That very economist has
come out in public and said that it is untrue, that they are
misrepresenting the conclusions of his report.
And everyone from the CBO to everyone else down has pointed out that
when you take in all the different ramifications of the bill in
consideration, that at worst, in the year 2017, I believe it is, that
the average American family, at most, would see an increase of $175 a
year. Now that's in 8 years. So between now and 8 years from now there
is no increase, and there are natural increases anyway. And in fact, in
some parts of the country, like the Northeast, which I represent, there
will actually be a decrease in cost because of the way that we generate
our energy now and the way it's transmitted.
In fact, the National Resources Defense Counsel says that in the
Northeast they will see a decrease of $5 per month on your electricity
bill. That's why three Republicans in New Jersey voted for this bill.
That's why a Republican in New York voted for this bill. They didn't
listen to the misinformation. They understood it was about national
security, and it delivers electricity to homeowners at a cheaper cost.
Yet, I believe to engage in misinformation on this very vital issue
of national security is wrong.
Congressman Boccieri, I'd like to yield to you, sir.
Mr. BOCCIERI. I thank the gentlemen from New York and Maryland for
their insight. And we talked about what our friends on the other side
are

[[Page 18541]]

suggesting about the cost. But let me ask you this profound question:
What is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost of doing nothing?
500 billion, $1 trillion overseas?
This is a matter of our national security. And I must tell you that
if 27 percent of all America's cars were hybrid electric gasoline
vehicles, much like Ford has produced with its Escape, and much like we
have with some of the other models coming before the market, if just 20
percent of all American cars were hybrid gasoline electric models, the
United States could stop importing oil from the Persian Gulf. Just 20
percent of the vehicles on our roads, we would end our dependence on
oil from the Persian Gulf.
This is the pillar of our legislation, national security, creating
jobs and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. That's what an
energy policy in the United States should encompass. That's what it
should evolve into, and that's what this legislation is about.
If you will just indulge me, I want to read some quotes here from
some of our colleagues who were running for President on the other side
of the aisle. Rudolph Giuliani said we need to use and expand the use
of hybrid vehicles. Remember, just 27 percent of all vehicles on the
roads of the United States would end our dependence on oil from the
Persian Gulf. Clean coal, carbon sequestration, which is very important
to a State like Ohio, where we have a great abundance of coal and
carbon capture. We can use that in Ohio. $180 billion in this bill for
carbon capture and sequestration and studying that.
The United States Air Force is testing synthetic fuels right now,
blended fuels at Wright Patterson Air Force Base because they know,
back in the 1940s, when the United States bombed the Ploesti Romanian
oil fields and cut off the Germans' supply of oil, the Germans quickly
transitioned to synthetic fuel, a derivative of coal. We're reaching
that in Ohio, and the United States military is doing the same.
We have more coal reserves in the United States than oil reserves in
Saudi Arabia. This should be a major national project. This is a matter
of our national security.
Let me reference our friend, Mitt Romney, a good American, suggested
that there are multiple reasons for us to say we want to be less
dependent on foreign energy and to develop our own sources. That's the
real key, of course, additional sources of energy here, as well as more
efficient use of energy. That will allow the world to have less oil
being drawn down from the various sources it comes from, without
dropping prices to too high of a level. It will keep people, some of
whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence on our foreign
policy.
Let me add Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Huckabee, a good American, plays the
guitar very well by the way, I should add. Mr. Huckabee said, So it's
critical that our own interests, economically and from a point of
national security, we commit to becoming energy independent and that we
commit to doing it within a decade. We sent Americans to the Moon in a
decade. We can become energy independent in a decade. We have to take
responsibility for our own house before we can expect others to do the
same for theirs. It goes back to my basic concept of leadership.
Leaders don't ask others to do what they are unwilling to do
themselves.
Very, very profound statement right there. And we know it's often
been said that fear is not a tool of leadership; it's a tool of the
status quo.
One last one. Our good friend, Mr. Paul. We serve with him here; I
just spoke with him the other day on the floor. Mr. Paul said, True
conservatives and libertarians have no right to pollute their
neighbors' property. You have no right to pollute your neighbors' air,
water or anything. And this would all contribute to the protection of
all air and water.
One last point, Mr. McMahon. The Truman Project suggested that
economic disruptions associated with global climate change are
projected by the CIA and other intelligence experts to place increased
pressure on weaker nations that may be unable to provide basic needs
and maintain order for their own citizens. This is a matter of national
security.
I yield back.
Mr. McMAHON. You're so right, Congressman Boccieri, and you put that
so eloquently. And you have to wonder why it is that the national
leaders of the Republican Party get it, yet it seems to be that the
Members of the House of Representatives from the Republican Party don't
get it at all.
Before I yield to our great colleague, also from the great State of
New York, Mr. Paul Tonko, I just want to make two points because on the
issue of national security, I was shopping in my local supermarket over
the weekend, and I spoke to a gentleman who had heard some of the myths
about the bill and we spoke about national security. He said to me,
well, if we just drilled all our oil in this country, we wouldn't have
this problem. Well, we know that physically that couldn't happen
immediately. But even if it were to happen, the truth of the matter is,
a generation from now those resources would be depleted as well and
we'd be in the same place that we are now.
The point of the matter is that we cannot go on the way that we have.
And, certainly, I know that there are some who will say, well, global
warming, that's a myth. Okay. Take that, if you want to make that
argument, go ahead. But pollution and the effects of pollution are not
a myth.
In my district we have the highest rate of lung cancer in America.
And why? Because we're downwind from the factories in New Jersey and
Ohio and across this country. And it blows across and into the people
of Staten Island and Brooklyn, and we breathe, and also from the cars
and the smog, that terrible air. And it's time, across this country and
all those places and those great States that I mentioned, and in my
area as well, to have clean air.

{time} 2130

There was a very disturbing report on TV this morning. You know,
children who are conceived and who are born in areas that have high
levels of pollution, that have high levels of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, or PAHs, if they're in the womb when they're exposed to
that, their IQ rates are four or five points less than those of
children who are conceived and who are born in areas that do not have
that pollution. So you could argue about global warming until the cows
come home. We know that it's real, but even if you think it isn't,
pollution is not a fiction.
As John McCain mentioned, and as we know in New York--and my great
colleague is about to speak from Upstate New York--acid rain was a
problem, Congressman Tonko. Certainly, in the lakes in Upstate New
York, in the Adirondacks and in the Catskill Mountains, they were dead.
The lakes were dead, and that was caused by pollution from sulfur
dioxide. We now know, because of cap-and-trade, a program which was
implemented in 1990 at a third of the projected cost at that time and
in half the time projected to clean up, it is very successful, and
those lakes again are alive.
Referring to Upstate New York, it's a privilege and an honor to
welcome our colleague from the great State of New York, one who is a
real leader on the issue of energy and on a clean environment, Paul
Tonko.
Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative McMahon. It's a pleasure to join
with you and with our colleagues from Ohio and Maryland in dealing with
the facts of the matter and not with the fiction.
I know that you had earlier gone through the mathematics and the
calculations of the impact, as reported by the opposition in the House,
as to what this is costing us. To take claim of $3,100 and basing it on
a study done where the author has said you have misapplied that
information from the MIT study and to grossly inflate it at $3,100
when, more appropriately, it's between the range of $65 and $80, it has
an impact on a family. Then the author further addresses it by saying
that it needs to be additionally calibrated to go toward the final
package that was passed by the House, which has an even lesser impact.
Yet leave that aside, and talk about the cost of doing nothing.

[[Page 18542]]

Many people will lament, I'm certain, in each one of our districts,
as we travel through our districts, about the job loss, about the
exportation, and about the offshore/across the shore of American jobs.
Well, no one is there to talk about that same impact of sending $400
billion a year to regimes that are unfriendly, that are terrorist in
nature, that are certainly not the most secure or stable governments in
the world, and we're supplying $400 billion a year. That is the cost
today. That is a tax. Call it what you want. It is a tax on the
American public. We can go forward and address, in a more secure and
energy-independent manner, the sort of solutions that will then grow
American jobs. American clean energy jobs are what this whole proposal
is about. So it speaks to our sustainable quality that we can encourage
that which allows us to grow energy security.
How so?
Well, the Union of Concerned Scientists has said that the renewable
electricity standards in our package in the House version will produce
well over 300,000 jobs. Then we also have the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy that is talking about energy efficiency
standards that are, again, part and parcel to this package that will
grow over 225,000 jobs.
So there, just in a sampling of what can happen, you see how American
jobs begin to grow and how they get cultivated from this very aspect of
legislation. Those are real jobs. Those are factual bits of information
that need to be exchanged and shared with the American public.
People know that our destiny here is controllable by our own actions.
They know that. They want us to go forward. They want us to grow this
green energy market. They want us to be able to respond in analytical
terms where we embrace the intellectual capacity of this Nation and
where we grow those technical jobs. There are incentives in this
legislation. There are those underpinnings of support to, again, foster
those kinds of jobs so that we can stretch this innovation economy and
so that we can enhance the number of jobs that are science-and-tech
related or are coming through ancillary forces out there that further
extrapolate the good outcome and that grow the jobs that are so
essential.
American jobs producing American power to then retrofit all of that
activity into the American job market: manufacturing, making it more
efficient.
We want to keep jobs here. Let's produce a package that retrofits
American manufacturing centers to allow them to produce a product
wisely, more effectively, efficiently, and then, yes, more
competitively in the global market. It all begins with sound energy
policy.
They don't want to face those facts. They just want to use
applications of fear and say it will cost every family $3,100 when they
have been defied in that statement by the very author of the study they
cite. That is unacceptable, and the public deserves better than that.
They deserve the facts that show how we can grow jobs, how we can
create United States' jobs--American jobs--and how we can make us a
global technology leader. We need to do it so that we can compete
globally. If we're not creating these products, if we're not
implementing those sorts of changes, we're falling drastically behind
places like China, Germany and Japan, and we can continue to list those
countries. It's imperative that we do this.
Mr. McMAHON. I think it's rather telling--and before I defer to my
colleague from Maryland--that, today, the other side of the aisle did
130 one-minute speeches, asking the question: Where are the jobs?
Quite clearly, as you have stated and from these independent studies,
from the balance of the studies, by 2020, there will be either 250,000
or 300,000 green jobs created in this country, as shown on this map of
our country. It shows where the jobs will be created all across this
great Nation. Each circle indicates from 4,000 to 85,000 to 250,000.
All of these jobs across this country will be created. This is where
the jobs are. It is in doing legislation that is insightful, that is
thoughtful, that takes some courage to stand up and to deal with
difficult issues, and that doesn't run away from the fact that this is,
indeed, an issue, not only of domestic financial security but of, first
and foremost, national security.
Congressman Kratovil from Maryland, I yield to you, sir.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Tonko, thank you for your comments.
I want to follow up on something you said. You were talking about
misstatements that were made in terms of the costs. I want to go back
to that in a minute.
You know, one of the misconceptions that you hear when you're back in
your districts and elsewhere across the country and that was played up
nationally is that, you know, the status quo is acceptable, that
Congress doesn't need to take any action, that we're good where we are,
and that, at this time, we don't need to do anything. Of course, that
is not accurate.
As you folks know, the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the
Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate
greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, meaning that the EPA
today, without congressional action, could take action on their own to
reduce greenhouse gases without any of the protections that were
provided under the bill that we passed here in the House. So the
argument that Congress could sit back and do nothing is clearly
inaccurate simply based on the Supreme Court case in 2007 that
demonstrated otherwise. So that ship, in a sense, has sailed.
Congress had an obligation to do it, not simply because of the
Supreme Court case, but as we're talking about here, obviously we
needed to do it in terms of national security and in terms of reducing
our dependence on foreign oil, Mr. McMahon, as you pointed out so
clearly and also you, Mr. Tonko, in terms of moving us forward in these
new green energy jobs that we need.
In terms of the cost issue that you raised, that is the best example
of how in a national debate statements are made that are so clearly
factually inaccurate. As you folks know, I spent 14 years as a
prosecutor, and my life and profession were governed by facts. When you
see a misstatement like that in terms of facts, it's somewhat
overwhelming, particularly, as you said, in the study that was cited by
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The author of that study
that was cited came out publicly and said that he was being cited
inaccurately and that that was not what he said.
The interesting thing is, in looking at it in terms of energy
efficiency, not only, arguably, will it not cost our constituents more,
but arguably, it will cost them less because of the energy-efficiency
savings that will result from that bill. In Maryland, as an example,
the study that you cited, Mr. McMahon, indicates that Marylanders could
arguably save $8 per month as opposed to the arguments that they're
going to pay $3,900 more. So the facts that have been given are
oftentimes inaccurate.
As you go around and as you're having this discussion with people on
whether we should have the policies that were included in that bill,
it's interesting from a Maryland perspective, because I heard quite
frequently people saying, You know, Mr. Kratovil, we don't want cap-
and-trade. Well, in Maryland, we've had cap-and-trade since 2007.
Maryland has participated in a regional greenhouse gas initiative since
2007, so we already had that.
Again, the interesting thing is, in terms of the Federal standards
that were set in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17
percent, in Maryland, it's 25 percent. So, in many ways, in Maryland,
the argument wasn't so much whether or not we should have these
policies; the question was whether or not we should have these policies
nationally so that we're all playing by the same rules.
So many of the facts that have been given are inaccurate. As I said,
it is incredible when you think about the fact that, for the last 40
years, there has been a recognition among Presidents that, in terms of
national security, we must reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

[[Page 18543]]

Ronald Reagan: The best answer, while conservation is worthy in
itself, is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the
greatest extent possible for our energy. 1981, Ronald Reagan.
President George H.W. Bush, October 25, 1991: When our administration
developed our national energy strategy, three principles guided our
policy--reducing our dependence on foreign oil, protecting our
environment and promoting economic growth.
Arguably, this bill does all three.
Yet, despite that recognition dating back to Nixon, despite the fact,
as Mr. Boccieri has correctly pointed out, that every major Republican
Presidential candidate acknowledged the need for reducing our
dependence on foreign oil and despite the fact, as was mentioned, that
Senator McCain specifically promoted cap-and-trade, when we take the
vote in the House, we only have a few brave Republicans who are willing
to cross party lines.
Now, why is that?
In my view, despite arguments that are made in terms of process,
despite arguments that are made somewhat substantively related to the
bills, the bottom line is, ultimately, the votes that are being taken
on major issues facing this country are still predominantly based on
politics and are not based on what is in the best interest of this
country.
As we talked about after this vote, were we to have the vote
tomorrow, I would make it again. It was a vote that was very important
to this country. It is a vote that will move this country forward, and
we need to do what we're doing tonight to convince the people of this
country that we were right, as I think we were.
With that, I will yield back.
Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Kratovil. You did that very eloquently,
and I think it certainly moved some of the people who are watching.
You know, before I yield to our great friend from Ohio (Mr.
Boccieri), you had pointed out about how facts are so important for a
prosecutor and about the author of that study and that the facts were
being misused. Publicly, the author said, No, you're misusing my study.
These are the real facts. I could see people would misuse it until he
made that statement. Maybe they misunderstood it. Yet, when he
clarified it and said that they were misstating it, can you imagine
that I heard it cited on the floor of this House this evening just
prior to our hour here? I find that incredible, and it's certainly
something that speaks to the fact that, for some, unfortunately, it's
more about politics here than it is doing what is right for the
American people.
I yield to our colleague from the great State of Ohio, John Boccieri.
Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Congressman McMahon.
So let me get this straight: The pillars of this legislation are
about creating jobs right here in America that can't be outsourced.
When you build a brand new nuclear reactor, when you build an electric
hybrid car, when you build an electric grid, those are jobs and those
are materials that cannot be outsourced. So it's about creating jobs.
Another pillar of this legislation is about national security and about
moving away from our dependence on foreign oil. Who wouldn't be for
that? Let's go over this again.
In 2003, a Department of Defense study suggested that the risk of
abrupt climate change should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to
a U.S. national security concern. The CIA and other intelligence
experts said that the economic disruptions associated with climate
change are projected to put pressure on weak nations that may be unable
to provide the basic needs and maintain order for their civilians.

{time} 2145

If we just invested in electric hybrid cars and 27 percent of our
vehicles here in the United States were gasoline-electric hybrid
models, the United States could stop importing oil from the Persian
Gulf. 66.4 percent of our oil came from overseas last year, over 40
percent came from the Persian Gulf. We're fighting two wars there. Our
Nation's military is there. It's time to bring our troops home safely,
honorably and soon, end this addiction that we have to Middle Eastern
oil.
Teddy Roosevelt, a great Republican, said this: In a moment of
decision, the worst thing that you could do is nothing. What about
drilling? In the Senate version, we're going to expand drilling here in
the United States. Expand it in the Gulf of Mexico. We know that we
can't sustain that, though, with 22 million barrels of oil consumed
here in the United States every day and only 3 percent of the world's
reserves here in the United States. After we consume 25 percent of the
world's oil, we can't sustain it. Do the math.
What about jobs? Manufacturing, in 1950, accounted for over half of
every job in America. We're at 10 percent now. Let's produce jobs here.
Let's make solar panels so that they can recharge our batteries. Let's
do things like fuel cell research like we're doing in the 16th
Congressional District. Let's do electric hybrid vehicles, plug-in
hybrids like we're doing in the 16th Congressional District. Let's
research clean coal, and coal is an abundant and cheap source of
energy. We're going to use it, we're going to make it cleaner, and
we're going to make certain that it is a long and sustaining source of
energy for us for years to come.
Let's talk about the 8,000 manufactured parts that go into a wind
turbine. Can you imagine the Timken roller bearings being made in my
district making the roller bearings for these big wind turbines? Can
you imagine SARE Plastics in my hometown making the molding and the
plastic molding that would go in to making the fiberglass
infrastructure. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced because we're
going to use them. We're going to consume right here, consume that
energy right here in the United States.
This is one of the most important issues that we have to tackle. This
is about the longevity of our country, quite frankly, my friends. This
is about what my four children will have to look forward to, a Nation
where we've become, like Mike Huckabee said, a Nation that can't feed
itself, that can't fuel itself, or produce the weapons to fight for
itself will be a Nation forever enslaved. Are we going to be economic
slaves to a condition that we can correct? I think not. We have the
courage. We can make that happen if we can find 60 patriots in the
United States Senate to make sure the United States is ending our
addiction to foreign oil.
Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, John.
I now yield to the great gentleman from the great State of New York,
Mr. Tonko.
Mr. TONKO. It is a pleasure to join with all of my colleagues in this
colloquy.
Just yesterday and today in this Nation's Capital, a number of people
got to meet the Apollo crew. They got to shake hands with astronauts
that made history. They set foot on the Moon. We won a space race that
took and demanded a huge investment by this Nation in science,
technology, in growing our intellectual capacity, in creating a vision,
in stating in bold measure how we were going to reach that goal.
We're at that same moment of challenge. Just think of it. If we had
allowed defectors that perhaps divided us or shared misinformation or
preached politics of fear, we perhaps wouldn't have won that race. And
that was so critically valuable and important to the American Nation,
to Americans at large.
That same sort of challenge, that sort of boldness of leadership, the
demands for truthful exchange are upon us today, and to grow these
opportunities, we'll deal with the facts. And I'm impressed by this
House for the leadership and the membership that has really embraced
that sort of factual information and advanced an agenda like the
legislation that we're proposing and promoting here this evening.
You know, when we look at situations, as Representative Boccieri made
comment, we can grow jobs but we can also grow intellect. We need to
grow the brain trust of this Nation. This measure invests in that
development of the human infrastructure. And certainly when
Representative Kratovil talked about previous administrations

[[Page 18544]]

through the decades talking about reducing our demands on foreign
importation of oil, 60 percent of what we consume today imported from
some of the most troubled spots in the world with unstable governments,
it's more than that. We have a gluttonous dependency.
Efficiency can reduce the demand side, and for far too long we did
not have a comprehensive energy policy in this Nation. We addressed
only the supply side and ignored the demand side. Well, now we're
talking about both sides of that equation: producing our own supplies
and reducing per capita usage of that precious resource. That's what
this is about.
Now we talk about innovation. We talk about growing those jobs. All
of us have cited moments in history that have inspired us. I represent
the city of Schenectady in upstate New York, dubbed the city that
lights and hauls the world. Just over a century ago, they were the
epicenter of invention and innovation. They allowed the world to be
changed by the simple dynamics of creative genius in that location and
an outstanding workforce. Blue collar, white collar workers that rolled
up their sleeves and got the job done.
Over a century later, we're at that same point where we need an
energy revolution. This Nation is poised for that sort of development.
Are we going to walk away? I don't think so. I think it's that boldness
of leadership that will bring us to the point that we need to be.
And speaking of GE, as a center in that city of Schenectady, they are
already inspired by this legislation because we have advanced within
the framework and the multiple needs that are addressed by this
legislation, battery innovation, advanced battery manufacturing,
batteries that can respond to energy generation, batteries that can
respond to storage of intermittent power like wind and solar, and
batteries that can address transportation sectors, both heavy fleets
and lighter fleets. They have a battery application that they believe
can respond to those multiple needs.
And they have proposed, at a press conference, to be the site in my
district to do advanced battery manufacturing. They are competing for
the dollars that are part of this package if it is successful and
certainly working on the input that came from the stimulus package,
from the Recovery Act.
Working with those applications, they want to go forward and make
certain that we can build in this State of mine, in New York State, and
your State, Michael, in a way that will have 350 to 400 jobs in the
manufacturing sector of advanced batteries. That is progress. That is
stability. That is security. That is a greening up of thinking. That is
job growth. That is intellectual capacity that is stretched to a far
greater degree.
And think of it again. 40 years ago this week, we accomplished our
goal because we committed to that goal. We didn't stand up in a House
of Representatives and deny the facts or twist the facts or reject the
truth. It all began with an honest exchange, and that's what we're
doing here. We're going the make certain that the facts are addressed.
Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Congressman Tonko, and you put that
eloquently. And certainly when the other side was engaged today in just
long-winded speeches asking the question, ``Where are the jobs?'' you
certainly will tell them with the stimulus package and with the ACES
bill, with the Energy Security Act, we have jobs in Schenectady, New
York, and Staten Island, New York, and anywhere else where we can build
wind turbines and get back the technology that we invented and is now
being used overseas.
Gentlemen, we have about 9 minutes left or so, so maybe I could ask
you all to kind of make a final remark. And we'll start with certainly
the most youthful member--that's a tough one to say.
Mr. KRATOVIL. I think Mr. Boccieri is younger than I. You certainly
look younger.
Mr. McMAHON. The person who lives the closest to Washington.
Mr. KRATOVIL. Since this will likely be my last round here as we go
through this, let me thank the three of you for the courage to take the
vote that you took on this bill. And as I mentioned in the last few
discussions that I have had, I do think that it's important in moving
our country forward that we do have people in this House that are
willing to make difficult choices and to take difficult votes that
ultimately are the best for this country even at times when it's
politically difficult to do so. So I thank you for the courage to do
that.
You know, people forget that just last year when we were running for
office we had $4-a-gallon gas, and people were looking at Congress and
saying, What are you doing about $4 in gas? And I mentioned when that
was going on that what we do oftentimes in this country is we deal with
the crisis but we don't always deal with the underlying issue that led
to the crisis.
And so now as the gas prices have dropped, many have forgotten what
we were facing just a year ago. Many have moved on. And yet my view is
we should not forget the position we were in 1 year ago because we
could, at any time in the future, be again paying $4 a gallon, $5 a
gallon for gas as long as we are held hostage by those that control our
energy. And until we make a decision, as we did in this vote, to move
forward towards renewable energy, renewable fuel and ending our
dependence on foreign oil, we could, at any moment, face the same
situation we faced last year. And none of us as Americans should forget
the anger that we had last summer when we were doing that. Many have
forgotten. We should not forget that.
We should deal with the underlying issue that led to the energy
crisis that we faced last year, and that is reducing our dependence on
foreign oil, moving towards renewable energy, and making positive steps
in terms of our own national security.
Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Kratovil, for participating.
And Mr. Boccieri, before I yield to you, I hope you will accept my
heartfelt apology for even thinking that Congressman Kratovil could be
younger than you, sir.
Mr. BOCCIERI. You are forgiven this time.
Let me thank my colleagues for joining me tonight on this important
dialogue about the course of this country. Now is not the time to let
up off the accelerator. Now is the time to put the gas down, put the
pedal to the metal to make sure we do this, because this is about our
national security, my friends. The CIA is saying it. The Department of
Defense is saying it. Both Democrats and Republicans alike running for
President said it last year, and a whole host of Presidential
candidates and Presidential minds before that said that this is a
matter of our national security.
This is not an issue of partisan politics. It's about patriotism.
This isn't an issue about Democrats or Republicans. It's about America
and where will our course be in years to come.
Forty-four percent of our oil comes from the Middle East where my
friends right now are putting their life on the line for our country
and for our national security and because of our economic interests of
oil in that region. Let's bring them home. Let's become independent.
Let's create jobs here in this country. Let's protect our own national
security and move away from our dependence on foreign oil.
Folks talk about the cost. What is the cost of doing nothing? What is
the cost of doing nothing? We're going to outsource a trillion dollars
of American taxpayer money, a trillion dollars, to enrich regions of
the world that don't believe the same that we do when we can believe in
Midwest innovation instead of relying on Middle East oil?

{time} 2200

This is the time that we can make the decision. This is the time to
move away from the politics of the past and look towards the future. We
can't allow detractors to use fear as a tool of leadership when we
know, as it's often been said, that it is a tool of the status quo.
We will be judged by action or inaction. I'm glad that we chose to
act. Thank you for having me tonight.

[[Page 18545]]

Mr. McMAHON. Thank you. Congressman Tonko.
Mr. TONKO. I thank Congressman McMahon.
Representative Boccieri asked what is the cost of doing nothing.
Well, beyond the lack of progress that we should taste in this Nation,
it is the denial of this generation's children and grandchildren who
will need those career paths developed by us. We need to cultivate that
thinking that will allow them to have these new energy jobs, these new
environmental jobs, these new plans for economic recovery. That is what
gets really lost in the discussion.
When China's now the number one producer of solar panels in the
world, when Germany's number two export after cars is wind turbines,
when six of the 30 top advanced battery-manufacturing solar and wind
companies are American, we need to do better than we're doing today.
As I made mention, the space race of decades ago was an investment
made by this Nation in robust fashion. Today, we're in a green energy
race with far many more global competitors. Whoever wins this becomes
the go-to nation. They will be the exporter of energy ideas, energy
intellect, energy invention.
Do we want to deny this generation, future generations from those
concepts, from that prize? I don't think so, and if we're going to deny
them, let's at least deal with the facts. Let's talk factually. Let's
not create a $3,100 price tag when we've been warned over and over
again by the author of that study that it is grossly inflated. Let's
move forward factually. Let's move forward in green fashion. Let's
provide for an innovation economy. Let's speak to the generations of
Americans that are counting on us to do a job, do it thoroughly, do it
directly.
Mr. McMAHON. I thank Congressman Tonko for those inspiring words, and
thank you all.
You know, it's funny, but in conclusion, I think we all have hit on
the very important themes.
Congressman Kratovil pointed out that it is about the domestic side,
how much we pay for oil and gas, and what happened last summer, $4 of
gas, America was outraged, that somehow a year later we've forgotten
that because there are those in the House of Representatives of the
United States Congress who use misinformation and misstatement of facts
to somehow take the American people's focus off what has to be done.
Just think about how many people you talk to at home who said, what,
now I have to have an energy auditor in my house when I sell my home?
We know that's not in the bill; yet, there are those who on the other
side of the aisle have used that misrepresentation of fact to scare the
American people, and that's wrong.
Congressman Boccieri is a great veteran, a great flyer of planes for
the United States military service. We thank you for your service, and
you remind us that right now there are young men and women wearing the
uniform of our country in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and other
places, standing in harm's way because we have not dealt forcefully and
effectively with our energy policy, and it's time that we end that.
And as I said to you, coming from New York City and having lived
firsthand the horrors of the acts of terrorism on our shores, in our
country, we cannot forget the sacrifice that was made that day by those
who lost their lives and those who got to the site and came to the
rescue and continue to suffer the deleterious effects of their health.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2920,
STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2009

Mr. Perlmutter (during the Special Order of Mr. McMahon), from the
Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged report (Rept. No. 111-217)
on the resolution (H. Res. 665) providing for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2920) to reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go requirement of
budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending legislation,
enforced by the threat of annual, automatic sequestration, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

PAYGO

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Maffei). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for
5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I find that our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle are going a bit through revisionist history again. We hear
them talk over and over again about the things that have happened, what
was happening about gas prices last year. They never mentioned that the
Democrats were in charge of the Congress when a lot of these things
that they talk about were happening, but I think it's important that we
always point that out.
A rule was just reported in by my colleague from the Rules Committee,
and I've just come from the Rules Committee myself where we reported
out a rule for a bill that's going to be heard on the floor tomorrow
called the Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, and I thought it might be
important to talk a little bit about that rule and that bill tonight
because I know this is going to create some confusion in the minds of
the American people as to why in the world are we passing something
called Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009 here just before the August recess.
It's also a confusing thing I think to people because they don't
understand why we have to pass legislation that says you should pay for
things as you go. Most people in this country do that. That's what they
expect us to do in the Congress, but that isn't what's going to happen
and there's several things going on with that bill that I think need to
be explained. Some will be explained tomorrow.
But first of all, that bill did not go to the committee, the Budget
Committee, from which it is coming. And when I asked the chairman of
the Budget Committee today, he said there just wasn't time to do it.
We're dealing with the appropriations bills, we're dealing with the
health care bill, and there simply wasn't time to do that. But just
like the American public expects us to read bills before we vote on
them, I think they expect our bills to go through committee and go
through the process of legislating. That's what we're here for.
But, no, there's no time to do that. We keep hearing that from the
majority party: there's no time to do what we're sent here to do. But
we know that this is just another diversion on their part, and I think
I have an appreciation for why that's happening.
Today, the headline in Politico: ``Poll, Public Starts to Lose Trust
in Obama; Health Timeline on Life Support; Obama Good for K Street;
Energy, Health Care and Finance Agenda a Boon to Lobbying.''
I think what the majority wants to do is sort of take some of the
attention away from some of the headlines that are coming out. One of
the interesting things about this bill that's going to be dealt with
tomorrow, which is it's supposed to be PAYGO, you pay-as-you-go.
However, it exempts 40 percent of our budget. So 40 percent of the
budget is not going to be included in PAYGO, and yet they are
increasing spending on that 40 percent of the budget at least 8 percent
a year.
So how in the world are they going to control spending if 40 percent
of the budget is exempt and you're allowing it to increase 40 percent a
year? You simply ignore that. It's as though the family sits down--
they're always comparing what we do here with what the family does.
It's like you sit down at the family table to talk about your budget
and you say, well, we're only going to deal with 60 percent of the
budget; we're going to put 40 percent over here and just going to
ignore it, and we're going to spend whatever we want to on that side of
the budget. That's exactly what they are doing with this, and it just
seems really ridiculous, and I think the American public needs to
understand that a little bit.

[[Page 18546]]

Now, what they say is, well, this was all instituted in the past;
we're exempting things Republicans exempted. But the very first PAYGO
bill was passed under Democrats in 1990, a bipartisan effort to try to
rein in spending. But what's happened since then is they've ignored it.
They even had a PAYGO rule in the rules that the Democrats passed when
they took over the Congress in 2007, but the rule is not strong enough
for them so now they want to put it in statute.
I think it's simply to divert attention from the headlines. The
President's approval ratings are going down. The health care bill is
creating many, many problems. We asked today 134 times on this floor
where are the jobs that were promised. The economy is going south, and
what do the Democrats want to do? They want to divert the American
public's attention away from all of those things and say but we passed
a law that says we have to pay for these things as we go along. Passing
this law is going to make no difference to them than their rule does.
You know, I find it just so interesting that when you say you're
going to do something you don't do it, but that's normally the way the
Democrats do it.

____________________

{time} 2210
JOBS LOST

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) is recognized
for half the remaining time until midnight.
Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend Virginia Foxx for getting up here and
kind of giving us some indication of what we mean by PAYGO. That's a
very confusing word. Been hearing it a lot. I haven't seen anything,
pay or go, since they've been talking about it. But we seem to be
pretty good at spending money around here and don't seem to be very
good at paying for it.
Just a thought here. We had a stimulus package that was over a
trillion dollars, and I believe that was borrowed money. We have a
budget that increased our taxes by $1.4 trillion over the next 10
years. So, that's money they're coming after to pay for it. But I don't
think that pays for that $1 trillion.
Their appropriations request increased all the nondefense spending by
12 percent this year. The number of months that jobs have grown under
the Democrats since we got started this year is a whopping zero.
So they were talking about why were we asking today on the floor of
the House, Where are the jobs? I get really excited about green jobs
and green energy and the things that people talk about.
I heard our colleagues in the previous conversation, one of them show
us a map of the United States and he said this would create 250,000 new
green jobs. I think that's fabulous. It's just unfortunate in the last
month and a half we've lost 1.2 million jobs in the United States. So
they've got to have a comparison.
The conversation that was going on the previous hour was about energy
independence. And I'm for energy independence. And any American that's
got any sense at all is for energy independence.
I once asked a man how big an array of solar panels would it take to
power Austin, Texas. This man was a physicist at the University of
Texas--to power Austin, Texas, for a period of time, and what would
that period of time be. He said a proper-sized panel in a non-air
conditioned time--and you know in Texas it's hot, so air conditioning
is our biggest problem, not heat--in a non-air conditioned time, a
properly sized panel could power Austin, Texas, for about an 18-hour
period of time before the Sun went down and the power went away. And
then you would have to have an alternative power to power it during the
night, or storage capacity, which our friends were talking about.
So I said, Well, that doesn't sound too big. How big would that panel
be? He said, Approximately the size of the Panhandle of Texas, which is
about 280, maybe 300 miles long and about 150 miles wide.
I'm not saying solar is not a solution. But are you going to replace
the coal-produced power in Pennsylvania with a solar panel in today's
world--and do it economically? No. But it will help, and we can help on
an individual basis and we can power businesses with it.
Let's be realistic about energy, and let's go after every form of
energy and clean up that energy. That's the solution to our problems.
That's a real energy plan.
You know, we in Texas have been having an abundance of natural gas
for a long time. We're real proud of our natural gas. We think it's
good stuff. Burns clean and we like it. A lot of our folks up here on
the East Coast, they didn't like our natural gas until they found some.
All of a sudden, guess what? They found some gas shale, a lot of gas
shale in the State of Pennsylvania, and I'm hearing an awful lot of
colleagues that a year and a half ago were bad mouthing natural gas
saying, Natural gas sounds good. I'm with Boone Pickens. Let's power
our automobiles with natural gas. Let's produce natural gas.
And, rightfully so, they should be proud of their resources. I'm not
knocking their resources. I'm proud they've got it. And I predict that
there's shale gas that spreads from Pennsylvania all the way down to
Fort Worth, Texas. And I think the geologists will prove it. There's a
lot of natural gas in that shale. And we ought to use it. And that's
how we free ourselves of foreign oil.
We free ourselves by drilling offshore in a clean drilling procedure,
which we have. And we haven't spilled a drop of oil in a drilling
procedure in 15 years in the seas. All of our spills you read about are
shipping spills, not drilling spills.
So let's go out and seek our energy where it is, and let's create our
alternative energy, wind and solar, and let's not forget nuclear, the
cleanest energy out there.
Ms. FOXX. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. I certainly will.
Ms. FOXX. In having this energy debate that we were having a few
weeks ago before the Democrats passed their national energy tax, which
they call cap-and-trade, that CBO predicts will levy $846 billion in
new taxes on the American people, we talked a lot about this issue. We
have been talking about different issues in the last couple of weeks.
But I heard during that debate that during the last 18 months of
President Bush's term, that his administration doubled the use of wind
and solar and that they did that in 18 months. But they went from about
1.5 percent to about 3 percent. Did the gentleman hear the same
information I heard?
Mr. CARTER. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. FOXX. You know, President Obama has said he would double the use
of solar and wind in his first 4 years. Yet, President Bush did it in
18 months--the last 18 months of his term, he did it. So, going ahead
and doubling it again, going from 3 percent to 6 percent, doesn't seem
to me it's going to be a terribly difficult job.
But I heard this also, and I'd like the gentleman to tell me--check
my facts--that, at the most, we are going to be able to absorb 10
percent of wind and solar in our electric grid because wind and solar
are not as dependable as other forms of energy, and that to put more
than 10 percent into the grid would jeopardize the Nation's energy
source. Have you heard that figure too?
Mr. CARTER. Yes. Reclaiming my time, I do not claim to be a
physicist, but I have talked with people in the power industry, and
because it is not a continuing flow of power but it is an alternating
form of power, to make it effective over a 24-hour period, 365 days a
year, the power has to be boosted. It's the only way it can be
effectively done.
I'm not saying it's not going to be a good source of power. Actually,
what's kind of interesting is most projections as to what percentage of
our overall national power, wind and solar combined--actually, wind,
solar, and hydroelectric combined, would be between 6 and 10 percent.
At maximum effectiveness--and, by the way, there's a lot of folks
that have

[[Page 18547]]

a lot of Texas envy in this world, and they are always picking on us
like we don't know anything but oil and gas. Let me make this very
clear: We have the largest wind farm in America in the State of Texas.
The city of Austin has the largest municipally-owned wind power farm of
any municipality in the United States. And, by the way, they are very
disappointed.

{time} 2220

It was on the front page of the Austin American-Statesman less than 3
or 4 days ago that the wind farm seems to be an unreliable source of
power for them. Even though it's a green source and they've been very
proud of being the greenest city in America because of that wind, but
over liability and this same different flux of power issue, the only
way it can be reliable is you put a gas-powered generator right side by
side to keep the flow going. So that's not saying I'm not for it, but
I'm saying the reality is we're a long way from replacing the massive
amount of power that it takes to run this machine called America from
wind and solar power.
Ms. FOXX. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARTER. Yes, ma'am. I yield.
Ms. FOXX. I think a lot of people don't realize one of the things
that made us such a successful Nation has been the extremely reliable
energy that we've had over the last 200 years. We developed energy and
learned how to use it very, very well. I believe we are the smartest
people and the most innovative people in the world, but what helped us
become a manufacturing giant was not just our intelligence, not just
our innovation, but our reliable sources of energy.
I worry a great deal about the pie-in-the-sky promises that have been
made about alternatives. I, like you, want to see us use every
alternative that we can, including foot power and walking a lot more,
but I do think that we have a problem because we are hearing these
unrealistic expectations of how we could go to alternatives and simply
abandon carbon. I don't think we can do that.
You pointed out that our colleagues, who were here the hour before,
talked about the creation of 250,000 new green jobs. I want to point
out that I have heard that Spain, which went very much to green jobs
and alternative energy, now has the highest unemployment rate in
Europe. It appears that many of our colleagues have established Europe
as the standard to which we should aspire, but when you start breaking
down what the situation actually is there, you will see that simply
making the goal of switching these jobs that we have now in
manufacturing that are going to go away with this national energy tax,
that are going to go away with the national health tax, all of these
new taxes that they want to put on are going to throw jobs out of this
country.
We need to look a little bit deeper. I think that so much of what's
happened, particularly in the last year and a half as promises were
made, lots of promises were made--a lot of those promises were made in
2006, which have also not been lived up to--the American people are
beginning to see that it's easy in a campaign to make promises. It's a
lot more difficult once you're in office to fulfill those promises. I
think that's one of the things that we're seeing now.
We've seen a tremendous change in our economy since the Democrats
took control of the Congress. They keep talking about problems that
they inherited, problems that President Obama inherited, but as I said
earlier, they conveniently leave out the fact that in '07, '08 and up
until this time, they have been in charge of the Congress, both Houses
of the Congress. It's the Congress that establishes the budget. It's
the Congress that appropriates the money, and much of the problems that
we've had have come from the expenditure of money.
I wanted to point out something. I know that we talked today, as you
said earlier, about jobs, jobs, jobs and that 134 of us came to the
floor today. I think we should have had magnifying glasses to say that
we're looking for the jobs that have been promised to us. That's what
was promised by President Obama, promised by the majority in the House,
but that we ought to talk about the fact that during the month of June
alone, the national debt increased by $223.7 billion, and as of June
30, 2009, the national debt had increased $2.9 trillion since the
Democrats took control of Congress on January 3, 2007. That works out
to an increase of $9,342.83 per person.
We know now that the American people are getting very, very concerned
about that debt and about our deficit. And you pointed out the deficit
earlier, but we have to keep pointing out to the American people who's
in charge, who spends the money, and who's responsible for putting us
into the situation that we're in.
Mr. CARTER. That's a good point to look at this chart that another
one of my colleagues prepared. He calls it, ``Oh, my,'' OMI, the Obama
Misery Index. Those of us who have been around a while remember that
the misery index was first created back during the Jimmy Carter
administration and was about the misery that was coming upon people by
the economic woes of the country. It's basically a combination of
unemployment--that's the loss of jobs--and the accumulation of public
debt.
Now, as my colleague from North Carolina pointed out, there seems to
be an overwhelming trend in this House to blame everything on the Bush
administration. So let's just assume for the sake of assumption--
because remember, Obama got elected and sworn in as President in the
latter part of January, and so we'll just make February the leftover
Bush stuff because that's the next month, and I would say it's a
carryover. So the misery index was 11.6 percent. The blue indicates the
unemployment numbers, and the red indicates the public debt, how much
we owe to other people or to ourselves.
In March, the next month of the Obama administration, we see that our
unemployment has risen to what looks to be about 13 percent and our
public debt has increased by, I don't know, another 10 percent,
something like that. So 21.7 percent in March, from 11.6 to 21.7. In
April it jumps to 28 percent, and look at the public debt, and look at
the unemployment that's there. The unemployment is the huge figure
here. They wonder why we are saying, ``Where are the jobs?''
Look. Wait a minute. Here is May. It has a 36.2 percent misery index.
Look at the unemployment figures. They're getting off the page here.
This month, 40.6 percent--oh, my, OMI, Obama Misery Index. And look at
the unemployment figures, and look at the national public debt. This is
just 5 months of the Obama administration. We have gone from a misery
index of 11.6 to 40.6.
So somebody says, Why are you asking the question, ``Where are the
jobs?'' Well, because unemployment went from 9 percent--it looks like
about 9, wouldn't you say--right there to 30 percent, roughly, 31
percent on the index. That's not the percentage of unemployment, but
that's the increase.
Now, there's a real good reason because we're asking, ``Where are the
jobs?'' I did a telephone town hall tonight, and I got to talk to some
real fine people. I actually had kind of an unusual thing.
Junction, Texas, is out west of San Antonio. It's not in my district.
In fact, I believe it's in Congressman Ciro Rodriguez's district or
it's in Lamar Smith's district, but it's not in my district. But the
lady who was talking to me, her phone was registered in Temple, Texas,
but she was calling from Junction. How that happened on my telephone
town hall is anybody's guess. I don't know. I didn't try to figure it
out. But I called a number in my district, and I got a lady in
Junction. You go figure. I don't know how it worked; all right?

{time} 2230

But the lady had something interesting to say. She said, by some
people's analysis, we'd probably be one of those rich small businesses
that are going to have to pay taxes under this new health care plan.
But although we may handle a lot of livestock and a lot of cash
temporarily, the reality is I'd say we're in the category of folks that
are just barely

[[Page 18548]]

scratching through the drought to get by. And what we realize as
something we can live on is very meager, along with me and my family
and my boys, who are also in our ranching business with us. We get by
on a meager amount.
She said, sir, I'm worried that somebody thinks we're rich enough
that they're going to put a 1 percent surtax on our small business,
which is a ranch.
Now, not everybody lives in Texas and lives in the Southwest, and
they may hear the word ``drought'' and think they understand what
drought means. But in Texas, we know what drought means because we've
lived through a period of time, back in the late 1940s and early 1950s
that they wrote a book about it, ``The Time It Never Rained.'' And, in
fact, it didn't rain. And cows ate prickly pear cactus, and ranchers
went out with burning torches and burned the thorns off the prickly
pear cactus so that the cattle would have something to eat, because
there was no grass.
And the hard tack folks that settled west Texas and central Texas
worked from sunup to sundown and into the night burning what we call
burning pear, burning prickly pear so their cattle wouldn't get those
thorns in their lips and get infected, and they wouldn't get screw
worms and the other things that were the blight of the 1950s until we
were able to eradicate that problem. We know what hard times is in
Texas because we've been in hard times.
And right now, we're going through a drought. Lake Travis, which is
just about 40 miles as the crow flies from my house, is a huge lake.
Right now it's a pond. We've got islands everywhere on it. It's the
lowest it's ever been in memory, they tell me. I haven't been out to
see it because I'm afraid I'd get too upset looking at it. But the LCRA
tells me they're in terrible shape for water.
That lady living out in Junction, Texas, she's in terrible shape for
water. And so she says to me, sir, not only am I worried about them
taking my health plan away from me, making me go on some government
plan I don't want to be on, but they're talking about taxing me as if
I'm rich, when I'm not. I've got a family, my family and my two boys,
or three boys' families running out of this ranch operation, and we're
fighting the drought, and we're short on water. And we're losing
livestock.
And I said, ma'am, I understand.
She said, that's not all. What they're doing with the fuel of this
country, what they're doing with their cap-and-tax scheme that they've
got there, I think that's going to make the cost of my farm fuel and my
ranch fuel go up, and I'm worried. We cannot survive our fertilizer
going up and our fuel going up, all of which comes from the petroleum
industry. We can't afford it. We just can't survive it.
And why do they want to do that to us? What did we do to them?
I said, ma'am, I hear you. I'm sorry. You know, all my life I've
lived under a system that I believe in. I still believe in it. I think
it's important that the rule of law prevail in a constitutional system
of government. I think the rule of law is as sacred to democracy and to
our Republic as the Constitution is to that Republic, and as the Holy
Book is to the church.
And it is imperative to every American that we support the rule of
law. It should be sacred to us that says--we say this, I think it is
the Rotary Club, but it may be another one of the clubs that says,
before their club--we are a Nation of laws, not of men. I think that is
extremely important for us to remember as Americans. We are a Nation of
laws.
These laws are created by this body and other bodies at the State
level. Those laws are not to be circumvented; and no man, no matter how
high a rate, how much of the population votes for him, how many people
love him, or think he's the greatest, or her, and think they're the
greatest thing since sliced bread, they don't have the right nor the
ability, nor should we allow them to circumvent our laws because of
their programs.
It is our American responsibility to uphold the law. For 20 years I
served as a judge of the highest trial court in Texas, at the State
level. I did my best to uphold the law. Those laws were written in
books, and they were passed by the Texas legislature and they're passed
by the United States Congress, and we tried our best to uphold those
laws.
The Supreme Court and the court of criminal appeals told us,
interpreted the laws for us in Texas and in the United States. And we,
as a court, tried our best to follow that direction from our court
system, because the rule of law has to prevail.
I am very concerned, and I express this tonight, that procedures and
rules are as important to an institution as anything else that there
is, because they are the standard by which a group of free men and
women decided to govern themselves by law.
Thomas Jefferson, a man held in highest regard, and at least many
Democrats call the Founder of their party, even though he called his
party the Republican Party at the time. But times change. Thomas
Jefferson wrote rules for this House. And one of the rules has been
repeated by our President of the United States. We're going to give--
and I would point out, our Speaker of the House, when she came in and
took her oath and told us how this Congress was going to operate, she
said, We will give this Congress every time at least 72 hours to
examine a piece of legislation.
Thomas Jefferson said 3 days for any piece of legislation before it's
voted on. It should be given to both sides for their examination and
preparation for debate. And that 3 days did not include Saturday and
Sunday. That's what he--when he wrote the rules for this House, which
were followed religiously, I guess you'd say for years and years and
years, decades, that's the tradition of this House. And it has been
waived for every major piece of legislation since Barack Obama has been
elected President.
As was pointed out on the last piece of legislation we had by John
Boehner right here on the floor of this House, they dropped 350 pages
of amendments to the cap-and-tax bill at 2 o'clock in the morning to be
voted on the next day. And that meant that we hadn't seen a completed
bill, even at that point in time. And we voted on it the next day.
I'm not here to cry about procedures. I play under the rules that
their Rules Committee writes. But I want you to know, when your
historical procedures, as American people, are circumvented by this
House consistently, every time, you should be concerned about those who
do not follow the established rule of law. This should be a concern of
the American people.
When the President of the United States and his White House friends
go strong-arm the automobile companies into making a deal that
circumvents the laws of this land, there's something wrong. And
creditors' rights are established laws of this land. And yet the
bankruptcy court was perfectly willing to let the parties make an
agreement. But the parties were strong-armed by the politicians in the
White House, strong-armed and threatened to the point that preferred
creditors gave up their rights under the law out of fear, and the
preferred creditors became, their rights went to the unpreferred
creditors, the labor unions.

{time} 2240

Now we have the Government Motors--we used to call it General
Motors--that is owned by the Federal Government and by the labor
unions, and those people who loaned money as secured creditors for
years to General Motors had to take pennies on the dollar because they
were strong-armed beyond the rule of law.
I'm sorry. That's not right. If we don't stand for anything in this
House, if we let our people down on every vote, if we don't try our
best to stand up for the rule of law, then we ought to be ashamed of
ourselves. I don't care what party you're in. I respect my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle, and in fact, many of them stand up and
speak out for many of the things that I stand up and speak out for. I'm
not saying this to point the finger at politics. Let's throw politics
out the door right now. Let's talk about what our Founding Fathers
intended for us to do

[[Page 18549]]

if we are going to keep this Republic together.
They expect us to set rules and to follow them. They expect us to
honor contracts between people. Now, you say to yourself, Well, sure,
we honor contracts between people, but I don't know about those big
corporations. You know, they're so evil. Maybe we shouldn't have to
respect those people.
So, if at a time when the price of oil was $6 a barrel, if the
Clinton administration had said, We need to get some money into these
coffers here, so we're going to sell some offshore leases, and we
really will give you a good deal on these offshore leases if you'll buy
them, even though we know you're not going to produce them at $6 a
barrel, oil companies would have said, Okay. We'll buy them. They'd buy
these offshore leases, pay money for them, continue to pay money for
them as the leases progress. Then, lo and behold, the price of oil goes
to $100 a barrel or to $80 a barrel. Guess what? They start producing
oil out there, and we have those people in this House who say that's an
excess in profit, although the Federal Government got what it
contracted for, and the oil companies got what they contracted for.
We believe in the sanctity of contracts whether they be between
corporations, governments or people. It's what keeps the glue together
in our society. Yet we are willing to say we don't care what the
contract says; we want it renegotiated, and we're going to put economic
pressure on you to do it. That's not the way we are supposed to act. We
are supposed to hold the contract sacred, because, in reality, what
created our Nation was a contract, a contract called the Constitution
of the United States, where the States got together and said we will
surrender our sovereignty in a bargain to protect us in our national
defense, to work out our disputes of commerce and to make this country
one Nation, gathered together from 13 colonies, from 13 States.
That contract is sacred, and every contract that comes therefrom is
sacred. Now, if we don't like it, change the law. That's fine. We can
do that. But I am concerned when we use the power of political might to
strong-arm people out of their rights and out of the laws of our
country. If the Republicans do it, I'm going to be just as mad at them
as I am at anybody else. It's not a political thing. It's about what is
right and what is wrong.
If we don't have rules, if we don't have rules we hold sacred, we are
bound for destruction. We've got plenty of issues to keep us busy in
worrying about our country without trying to change the rules of the
game. Maybe people think that guy's half crazy, standing up there,
talking about that stuff, but you know, I believe in this stuff. I
believe passionately in the American people, in the Constitution and in
the history of this country. You can rewrite it all you want to. It is
what it is, and what makes us noble, what makes us fine, what makes us
exceptional is that we are willing, for the good of the Nation, to hold
certain things important, and I would say the rule of law is what
separates us.
I'll tell you a story. I had the opportunity to go with the Foreign
Operations Committee down to a very lovely country, to Nicaragua in
Central America. When I grew up, and in my college days, I lived with a
bunch of ranching boys out in West Texas, and visited several of their
operations out there. Being a native Texan, you know, we're all kind of
caught up in the magic of ranch life, so I learned a little bit about
what good-looking country looks like and what grass looks like and the
cattle elite. I looked for how much water is out there that's available
for livestock. I looked at Nicaragua and the part of Nicaragua that I
went to, and I thought, man, this is some good-looking cattle country.
Boy, a fellow could really raise a lot of nice cattle in this country.
There's plenty of water. You could even irrigate because they've got
water that's less than 18 feet under the ground. Now, you don't drink
that water, but you could irrigate with it.
So I started asking the question: Why are these poor folks having
such a hard time economically? Do you know why? Because they've never
quite established the rule of law. In fact, they don't even have land
titles in Nicaragua.
One of the things that they're trying to do with our foreign aid is
to somehow establish a method of land titles, a method of saying you
bought it; here is your title; you own it, and you can sell it to the
next guy. Instead, they have to worry which regime is in power in
Nicaragua as to whether or not they get to keep their land. So, after a
while, after 100 years of a system like that, people start to not
really invest too much in their land because you never know whose land
it's going to be next year.
We have the rule of law. We have land titles. We know when we buy our
homes, when we pay for them, when they're free and clear, and when our
debts are off of them that we own that piece of ground and whatever's
on top of it, and we can pass that on to our children. That can be part
of our accumulated wealth, which makes the next generation healthier,
richer and more prosperous. They don't have that ability, and yet
they've got a beautiful place and the potential. What's missing? The
rule of law.
It's sad. It's sad to think that a bunch of nice people who need to
make that country work are limited by the fact that men and their
political strengths are overpowering what they should have, which is
the rule of law. I do not mean this as any criticism of the country of
Nicaragua, and I hope it's our goal as Americans to try to help them
establish the rule of law, especially the rule of land titles. I think
it's important. My point is, our forefathers gave us that blessing.
When we count our blessings, sometimes we forget that some of it is
right there in that constitutional document that we have.

{time} 2250

You know, I had somebody from Dell Computer tell me that they--what
they have to sell is what's in their minds, what they have created from
their brains. Guess whose country wrote it into their founding document
that your intellectual property belongs to you? The United States of
America. It is in our Constitution that what you create with your
creativity belongs to you and you have an ownership right in it and you
can enforce it in a courtroom. The rest of the world is coming around
to that.
But what we have been given are so many blessings by forward-thinking
people in our past, and I'm here tonight, as we talk about all of these
issues of the economy and what's going on, don't let us forget that
that is not a country of men. This is a country of laws. And the way we
operate on this floor of this House and the way we operate at the
courthouse and the way we operate as human beings is governed by the
rule of law. And if we ever lose that, we lose our country.
We've got lots of issues going on right now. We've got health care.
We've got this cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax bill that's supposed to be
protecting the environment. We've got runaway spending. We've got
mounds of debt that's mounting up in every direction. The debt figure
is unbelievable. And all of these things should be dealt with through
this body and its democracy and its democratic principles. That's the
way it should be dealt with, the rule of law. And if we do that, we
will have met our obligations to the people who sent us here. And I
challenge both sides to let the rule of law reign here. Let's don't
change the rules. Let's don't stop debate. Let's talk.
Everybody says we need bipartisanship. How can you have
bipartisanship if one side writes a 2,000-page bill and the other side
doesn't get to do anything but say, ``Yes, I like it'' or ``No, I
don't''? How in the world is that bipartisan?
I think our Founding Fathers really thought that you are going to
have liberals over here and conservatives over here and you're going to
try to address an issue and you're going to sit down at a table and
you're going to talk about what you can and can't do, and you're going
to come up with a solution. I think that's what they thought

[[Page 18550]]

we were going to do. We're not doing it right now. And I do honestly
believe it would work, and I think there are an awful lot of people
that sit in this room every day that feel the same way.
Let's have the courage to do that. Let's follow the direction of our
Forefathers. Let's remember our history, and let's start talking to
each other instead of imposing our will, one group of men and women
imposing their will on another group of men and women. I really don't
think that's what we intended when this House was created.
We like to say this is the greatest deliberative body in the world.
It is the cradle of the democracy. It's the cradle of freedom, that
liberty was born here and thrives here. Well, if liberty's born here
and thrives here, it's up to us to continue to keep her breathing and
keep her thriving. And I don't believe we do it by ignoring the rules
or changing the rules. I believe we do it by working together to come
up with solutions.
And probably kind of like the good verdict you get in the courtroom,
if you give a verdict in the courtroom and both sides are not
completely happy, you've probably got the best verdict you ever could
create. But if you've got a verdict that only one side gets everything
and the other side gets nothing, it probably wasn't the right thing,
nine times out of ten. I was always happy if both sides walked out mad
at me. I figured we did a pretty good job because at least both sides
had some give-and-take in what happened in the courtroom.
That's where we ought to be in here. When it's over with, both sides
ought to say, We didn't get all our way but at least we got something
done and we didn't impose the will of man over the rule of law.
I guess I just felt like preaching this late at night. And that's
probably enough of all of that.
I do ask that the people back home--I know we're not supposed to
address the people back home, but I will say that every man and woman
in this House are addressing life-changing issues now and will be in
the very near future, that the amount of accumulated job loss and debt
is getting critical for all of us whether we are in this House or
whether we are at home, and let's all try to work together to come up
with something that will work.
And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

POPULIST CAUCUS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley) is recognized for
60 minutes.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I'm here tonight on behalf of the
Populist Caucus, which is a caucus that I founded this year, along with
many of my colleagues, who felt that there was not enough emphasis in
this Chamber on discussing values that promote and expand the middle
class.
So one of the reasons that we founded this caucus was to find a voice
that was going to be consistent in pursuing policies and adopting
legislation that we're going to help promote opportunities for middle
class families to survive, and also to expand opportunities for people
to enter at the middle class because we all feel, and this country's
history has shown, that this country does best when we have a large,
robust middle class.
And that's why, when we passed the Populist Caucus values, these are
the primary things that we wanted to focus on: good jobs, middle class
tax cuts, affordable health care, quality education, fair trade,
consumer protection, and corporate accountability.
Now, some of those basic values have been part of the ongoing
discussion in terms of our health care reform bill that is currently
pending in the House of Representatives. And as a member of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee and the Health Subcommittee, much of my
time this year has been consumed in making sure that the health care
bill that we are putting forward addresses these values, particularly
affordable health care, consumer protection, and corporate
accountability.
So today, the Populist Caucus announced its health reform principles,
and I'm going to spend some time tonight talking about those
principles, talking about the importance of these principles to middle
class families and those seeking to enter the middle class, and then
sharing some stories from some constituents of mine back in Iowa's
First District who are struggling right now to provide for their
families, and address growing health care burdens that affect every
American no matter where they live, no matter what they do.
As we have seen over and over and over again, health care costs
continue to grow every year. They represent a larger and larger share
of our gross domestic product. We see more and more families faced with
the burden of bankruptcy because of unsustainable health care costs
that aren't covered by their insurance plans. We see more and more
Americans without any insurance at all, almost 50 million uninsured
Americans. We also see many Americans who are underinsured; that is,
they are taking policies out that don't provide them the type of
coverage they need because they can't afford either to buy their own
coverage if they're self-employed or if they're without employment, or
many of them have insurance offered through their employers who are
increasingly forced to put more and more of the burden of that
insurance coverage on to their employees.

{time} 2300

And so one of the reasons why we've been having this national
conversation about health care reform is because we have to come up
with a system that works for the American people and finally realizes
the goal of universal coverage.
Now, some people who have health insurance and are sitting well in
their own financial circumstances wonder why should I care about this;
this doesn't affect me; this doesn't affect my family. But the reality
is that each one of us in this country pays a hidden tax right now of
$1,200 a year so that people with no health insurance who go to the
hospital emergency room and will be given treatment, because those
hospitals cannot turn them away, somebody pays for that care, and we
all pay for it in the form of higher tax burdens and in the form of
higher insurance premiums for the coverage that we have.
So that's why this issue is so compelling, and it's something that we
have to address, and the sooner we address it the better.
The reason why it affects us all is because 7 out of every 10 cents
spent on health care goes to cover chronic diseases, things like
diabetes and obesity and all of the complications that can come from
them including congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, problems
with vision and foot care and on and on and on.
Now, the thing about chronic disease is that most of them are
preventable through education and early intervention, and that's why
our system right now is broken, because we pay for health care on a
fee-for-services basis, which means if you get sick and you seek
medical treatment, we will pay for that treatment. But we don't provide
incentives to individuals to get healthy before they need a doctor or
have to go to the hospital.
And that's why a national health care policy that makes sense has to
emphasize prevention and wellness. That has to be one of the
cornerstones of how we reduce that enormous burden of chronic disease
in this country.
So let me start by briefly reviewing the Populist Caucus health care
reform principles, and then I will spend time talking more about the
details of each one.
The first goal of the Populist Caucus in addressing health care is
providing more affordable health care, and we recommend a values system
in this health care bill that ensures that every American has access to
affordable, quality health care coverage. Now, that sounds simple in
theory. In reality, it is a challenge that has faced this country since
its founding.
The second component of our health care reform principles for the
Populist Caucus centers around choices for families, populist values.
The first aspect

[[Page 18551]]

of our values for health care reform under choices for family is keep
your coverage if you like it, and that is included in the House version
of the health care reform bill. It allows consumers to keep their
current coverage if they like it.
So if you have an employer who's currently providing you high-quality
health care at an affordable price, like maybe a company like John
Deere which employs many people in the First District of Iowa, nothing
in this health care reform bill is going to change your ability to keep
that coverage. If you like it, you get to keep it.
Second, one of the most important factors in choices for families is
no discrimination, and you have to have a populist value that says, in
insurance coverage, you have to eliminate discrimination that allows
insurance companies to exclude people from coverage based upon
preexisting conditions.
Now, we know this is an enormous problem in many different ways.
There are millions of Americans who are denied health insurance
coverage right now because of preexisting conditions.
I have a nephew who lives in Malcolm, Iowa. He has a young son named
Tucker Wright, and when Tucker was a year and a half, he was diagnosed
with liver cancer, and he was very, very fortunate that he was
diagnosed and had an opportunity to have two-thirds of his liver
removed at a very young age to save his life. But Tucker also faces a
very bleak future because he has a long history, a long life of
expensive medical care ahead of him.
Many of the existing health care policies have a cap on lifetime
benefits; and once you meet that cap, you get no more coverage, no
matter how sick you are, no matter how old you are, no matter what your
medical needs are. And if you have been diagnosed with a serious
disease like liver cancer, and your family wants to move or your
parents want to look at other job opportunities right now, there's very
little chance that you're going to be able to make that switch and get
coverage because they will write an exclusion in the policy based upon
preexisting conditions that say we're not going to cover you because
you have this expensive treatment.
That's one of the major problems with health care in America today,
and it's not just on access to care. It has enormous implications for
employers and employees because right now in this country, literally
hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers are working in jobs
they don't like. And the only reason they're there is because those
jobs offer them some level of health care coverage, and they know that
if they leave the job they have, there's a very good chance that a
family member, a loved one, won't be able to get coverage under a new
plan at a new employer because of preexisting conditions.
And this bill that we are considering in the House right now
eliminates discrimination in health care coverage based upon
preexisting conditions.
One of the other very important elements of our Populist Caucus
family values emphasis is including a robust and meaningful public
health insurance option that operates on a level playing field with
private insurance companies, increases consumer choice through a public
option for insurance coverage that does these things--and these are
critical achievements--one, competes on a level playing field; two,
maintains minimal levels of coverage that ensure quality care for its
enrollees.
And in the House plan, there are three basic forms of coverage that
will be available: a basic plan, an enhanced plan, and a premium plan.
And then there will also be something called the premium plus plan, and
all of those plans will provide a minimal level of coverage designed to
provide basic and emergency types of health care coverage for every
person in America.
Another component that emphasizes these family values of the Populist
Caucus is that this public plan option must reimburse health care
providers adequately and equitably, and we're going to spend some time
talking about what that means.
Another family value in the Populist Caucus health care package, it
helps address current geographic disparities in health care. This is
one of the most significant challenges that we face and one of the most
significant problems with our health care delivery system.
Another key family value is that the existing infrastructure of
Medicare which will be used under the current plan, a Medicare plus 5
percent reimbursement payment system, that that existing infrastructure
has to be used to create a viable provider network; but it should only
use Medicare as long as improvements are made in the way that
Medicare's reimbursement structure and geographic disparity issues are
addressed, and I'm going to be spending time talking about the
challenges that we face and the problems we currently have in Medicare
reimbursement.
Now, I want to move on to another key component of the Populist
Caucus health care values: saving taxpayers money. Every medical
economist who looks at our current health care delivery system is in
agreement that the number one problem is a problem called
overutilization, using too many medical services that aren't necessary,
that waste money and result in worse outcomes. We have to address the
problem of overutilization of care. It creates unnecessary costs and
adds hundreds of billions of dollars and can lead to harmful medical
errors.
Now, medical economists at the Dartmouth Atlas Project and places
like the Commonwealth Fund who have looked at this estimate that every
year in our health care delivery system we lose between $500 billion
and $700 billion every year due to overutilization, and they have also
analyzed patient outcomes arising from that overutilization, and the
figures are shocking.
They estimate that every year 30,000 people die in this country
because of too much medicine that exposes them to risks and actually
results in their death. There are hundreds of thousands more who are
injured because of overutilization, and it's not achieving the desired
goal of medicine, which is to cure patients who need help and to
provide it in a meaningful fashion.

{time} 2310

One of the other concerns about saving taxpayer money is emphasizing
prevention and quality care. We have talked about that. We need to
shift to a health care delivery system that moves toward incentives,
toward high-quality care prevention, nutrition, and wellness. And we
have to reform Medicare part D, the drug package for seniors and people
on Medicare. One of the most essential components of that is to close
the doughnut hole, give Medicare the ability to negotiate with drug
manufacturers, and to seek rebates for all Medicare beneficiaries from
those pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Now I want to talk for a moment about this problem that I mentioned
called geographic disparities in payment for health care. This chart
was prepared by The Commonwealth Fund to focus on the relationship
between the quality of care and Medicare spending.
So, on this bottom axis it provides cost numbers to show annual
Medicare spending per beneficiary in dollar amounts for every State in
the country and places them on the chart according to that axis. The
vertical axis has an overall quality ranking. And those quality
rankings are taken directly from Medicare administrative claims data
and the Medicare Quality Improvement Organizations Program data. So
it's information already collected by Medicare.
The chart numbers are shocking in terms of showing the existing
disparity in how we pay for Medicare and the direct correlation between
how much we spend and the quality we get for our Medicare dollars.
Many of us who represent States who are up in the top 5 to 10--not
top 5 to 10 percent, but the top 5 to 10 in rankings, these States
right here inside this pink circle, States like New Hampshire, Vermont,
Maine, North Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, Minnesota, Oregon, and
Montana, are consistently providing the highest quality of care to
Medicare patients at the lowest cost, because they also rank in the
bottom 5 to 10 States in Medicare payments per beneficiary.

[[Page 18552]]

Then, contrast with what we see at this end of the chart. This chart
reveals that the most expensive of States in terms of what we pay for
Medicare per patient is the State of Louisiana, where we pay right now
about $8,500 per patient. Guess which State is also ranking 50th in
terms of quality outcomes, according to Medicare data? Louisiana.
That is the hallmark of an inefficient payment system for health care
delivery and it's a symbol of what is wrong with our health care
payment system in this country. That's why we have to address this
problem of over utilization, which is directly driving up these costs;
rein in unnecessary and wasteful spending so we can use those savings
to pay for a comprehensive health care reform package that provides
access to care for all Americans.
So I want to move on and talk about some of the stories from my
district that have shaped my commitment to making change in health care
delivery.
Since I was elected to Congress in 2006, and was sworn in in 2007, I
have received almost 12,000 letters and e-mails on health care. Health
care is the number one issue that my constituents write to me about.
And this year alone, I have received over 4,000 letters and e-mails
relating to health care. In fact, this small stack represents just a
small portion of my constituents who have had serious issues with our
health care system. And just in my hand I have over 200 stories from
constituents of mine who have taken the time to write to me and explain
their frustrations and concerns with our health care system.
These stories are the backdrop and provide the compelling evidence on
why we need true health care reform in this country.
So let me start with this compelling story from Sandy Ingram in
Davenport, Iowa, which is right on the Mississippi River, beautiful old
city in Iowa, largest city in the First District.
Sandy starts her story: My story is not unlike many others who are
struggling with their health insurance problem. In August of 2007, I
was diagnosed with stage III breast cancer. Until that time, I was
rarely ever ill, and I looked forward to retiring, like most other
women in their sixties.
Until January 31, 2009, I worked for a company and was employed as an
executive assistant to the CEO. I raised three children, all now
educators, as a single mom and I finished a four-year degree at St.
Ambrose University.
In the spring of 2007, I had my usual mammogram, and I told the
technician I had a sore spot, and she made note of it. It came back as
no change. As the weeks went by, it became more pronounced and painful,
and I went to a nurse practitioner, who sent me for another mammogram
immediately.
Over time, it was discovered that my mammogram test was positive and
I received a call at my office with the news that every patient dreads:
I'm sorry to tell you that you have cancer.
I set up an appointment with the surgeon and, with the help of my
nurse practitioner, I found a wonderful young surgeon, Dr. Melinda Hass
of Trinity Hospital. I met with her, went through all the necessary
workup, and later received a followup phone call saying my cancer was
much worse than they thought, and I could have cancer in both breasts.
They found out the cancer had spread to my lymph nodes, and so I began
chemotherapy.
The beginning of the third week, my hair began to fall out in the
shower. I shaved my head, bought some caps and scarves, and moved on. I
worked throughout the chemo by scheduling time off and going to work
when I began to turn the corner from the side effects.
In December 26, 2007, I had bilateral breast surgery to remove both
breasts. I made this difficult decision because I didn't want to have
the chance of reoccurrence in the other breast. During the surgery, 22
lymph nodes were removed. However, 17 of the lymph nodes still had
cancer. The feeling that I had that morning still gives me chills. My
fight wasn't over yet.
I underwent another round of chemotherapy a few weeks after the
surgery, followed by 36 radiation treatments. I was physically spent
and took a medical leave of absence and returned to work in August of
2008, ready to hit the ground running. Needless to say, I love my job,
the people that I worked with, and was looking forward to being there
until I was old enough to retire.
I was so pumped up that I unlocked my office door and prepared for a
busy day when I came back to work. About an hour later, I had a phone
call from a friend in customer service saying their assistant had just
been let go. A few minutes later, my phone rang and it was my boss,
asking me to come to the conference room upstairs.
What happened is my boss greeted me with tears in her eyes, a big
white envelope in front of her. Seated at the table was the VP of
manufacturing and the two of them broke the news to me that my job had
been eliminated. It was only weeks after I had been declared cancer
free by the 60-day checkups.
I was stunned. They both assured me it had nothing to do with my
performance. The response was predictable. They told me that I would
have to leave the building immediately and could return to the office
later to pack up my office. Everybody in the whole office was very
shaken.
So now I'm unemployed. I have unemployment insurance and through
COBRA continue to pay for health insurance on my own. That will last
through July of 2010. At that point I will have to have some kind of
insurance until my 65th birthday in November of 2010.

{time} 2320

I continued to look for a new position. I have applied for several
and may try to work part time to help pay for the COBRA coverage. I
have done research about getting further coverage, and I have found I
cannot get coverage due to my preexisting condition. There is some kind
of stopgap health coverage through HIP of Iowa; however, since I paid
health insurance premiums for nearly 20 years, I feel I should be able
to keep it until I am old enough for Medicare. Health care reform is
essential to all Americans. The time is now, and I am willing to help
tell my story to get the bill passed.
Here is another story. This one is from Elle in northeast Iowa. She
is 1 year old and has been diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. Her family
had COBRA insurance, which is an extension of your insurance after you
leave your job until you find more employment, from her dad's former
employer in Minnesota. Her dad's employer offered a more affordable
plan to the family, but when they realized the family resided in Iowa,
they reversed the offer. Because of Elle's diagnosis, this family was
unable to get private insurance in Iowa.
Her mother quit her job so that their income would decrease enough to
get Elle on Medicaid. Quite understandably, Elle's parents are
frustrated because they believed they shouldn't have to quit their jobs
to get health care coverage for their daughter. They believe that
insurance needs to be accessible for all children, including those with
chronic health conditions, and that is one of the number one objectives
of the health care reform bill we're considering right now.
Here is another contact I got from Mark in Davenport. Mark was doing
insulation in his mother's home so that she could take advantage of
some energy savings rebates, which is something every American should
be encouraged to do. Unfortunately, while Mark was putting the
insulation in his mother's home, he fell through the ceiling and
severely injured himself, suffering a collapsed lung, broken ribs, and
dislocating most of the ribs from his vertebra. He was lucky to
survive, but he had no health insurance because he was a self-employed
private contractor. His medical bills were over $20,000, and because of
those high costs, he was forced to file for bankruptcy so he could get
out from under his debts.
Here is another contact from Cynthia in Denver, Iowa, who 3\1/2\
years ago lost her husband to diabetes and heart disease. Since then,
she's had to deal with major debts because they, like millions of
Americans, did not have health insurance. When they tried to get
coverage, they were told that because of

[[Page 18553]]

her husband's preexisting condition, they would have to pay for
premiums for a year without coverage for those claims. She continues to
be without coverage because she is still paying off the bills from her
husband's doctor and hospital costs.
Here is another story from Gus in Waverly. His daughter Jamie lives
in Des Moines and works for a life insurance company. Jamie, like many
Americans, has cerebral palsy and is confined full time to a
wheelchair. But even with her limitations, Jamie chooses to work, and
the only type of insurance help that she gets is through a Miller
Medical Trust that allows her to work, but she can't work full time.
Because of the limitations of that trust, she has lost a much-
deserved promotion. She hasn't taken a pay raise in years so she can
choose to work and be a taxpaying citizen. Many of her advisers and
social workers have told her that she should just go on full disability
and her benefits would increase and be easy to get since she qualifies
as a quadriplegic; yet Jamie is a perfect example of the American
spirit. She wants to work, and she continues to work and does
everything she can.
Her father doesn't understand why we would punish people like Jamie
who want to work but still need critical access to health care. Let
them earn more money that pays more taxes and help them support their
own services. Who could argue with that? And that's what we want to do
with comprehensive, meaningful health care that addresses these
Populous Caucus values.
Here is another letter from Julie in Cedar Falls, Iowa. Several years
ago when Julie was mowing her lawn, she was severely injured when a
bolt on the lawnmower cut her arm. She had to go to the emergency room
for stitches. Later she learned that her emergency room visit was not
covered by her health care coverage because, according to them, she
should have waited to cut her arm when the doctor's office was open
instead of visiting the emergency room. Given the severity of her
wound, she couldn't have waited until Monday to see her doctor. The
emergency room was the only option available for her at the time. Julie
believes that the problem with health insurance companies is they look
for any excuse to deny payment for an existing claim.
This is a letter from Mic in Davenport who was born with congenital
heart disease. Mic has had three open-heart surgeries, the first at age
3 weeks, the second at 16, and the last at age 45. He owns his own
company, employs 11 people, and provides group health insurance to his
employees because it's the right thing to do, but also because he can't
buy an individual health insurance policy with his congenital heart
disease because it would be a preexisting condition.
Mic says, We're charged at the highest rate possible, and our rates
go up by the maximum amount allowed per year because of my heart
disease. In the past 2 years, we've risen to 60 percent and 75 percent
increases. In order to keep providing insurance to my employees, I will
have to drop out of the program next year to keep the rates manageable.
This story is from Randal Wehrman from LeClaire, Iowa. His wife,
Beth, died from pancreatic cancer in August 2008 at the age of 56. And
like many couples, during her illness, Randal had his own health
emergency. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer, and as he describes
it, we were launched into a health care arena and were impacted
dramatically by how our health insurance performed.
Randal, like many Americans, tells me that he was reasonably
satisfied before this point with how his health care insurance carrier
had functioned. His wife was a registered nurse, so she was a very good
medical consumer. He was in the property and casualty insurance
business and had been a certified paramedic in the State of Iowa for
the last 25 years, and as he notes, this would suggest that Beth and I
were above average medical consumers. It also means, according to his
background and his business, including a BA with a business
administration degree from Simpson College, that he would have been an
above average medical insurance consumer.
Here is the problem: Even though the Wehrmans' health care plan said
it had a maximum out-of-pocket of $1,500 per person in network and
$3,000 per person out of network, we paid just over $10,000 out of
pocket during calendar year 2008 for our health care. Here is how
Randal describes it:
``You see, one has to read the fine print to find out doctor office
copays, prescription copays and emergency copays do not fall under the
maximum out-of-pocket expenses referred to in the bold print. While
Beth's care included an out-of-pocket network expenses, mine did not,
which means that we spent an additional $5,500 of out-of-pocket items
that were not included in our limits. We are fortunate that we could
pay the additional, although not easily, but some cannot. For some,
this situation could be financially devastating. And we know that by
the high number of medical expense-related bankruptcies we see every
year. This should be clearer and more concise, as it can have a
substantial impact on the financial futures of many citizens.''
Well, Randal, you are absolutely right, and one of the reasons why I
introduced a bill to incorporate plain language into every insurance
policy sold under the national health insurance exchange that's part of
this health care bill is because I have had my own experience, not just
as a consumer of health care, but helping clients, in the 23 years I
practiced law before I came here, who had disputes with their insurance
companies over coverage benefits.
One of the things I learned is that when you force insurance
companies to write those policies in language that insureds can
understand, you eliminate the type of confusion that highly
sophisticated health care consumers, like Randal and Beth Wehrman,
brought to the table and still wound up with unfair treatment based
upon language in their policy that was difficult to understand and not
part of the clearly stated coverage.

{time} 2330

I'm very proud of the fact that my plain language amendment is
incorporated in the American Health Care bill that we are currently
considering in the House of Representatives. And I want American health
consumers like Randall and Beth Wehrman to be able to look at that
policy and see it written in language that is specifically intended to
be understood by them so they have a deep appreciation for what they
have, and they also have the ability to go into that National Health
Insurance Exchange and compare it to other policies that provide the
same basic types of coverage and say, is this policy a better policy
for me than the one next to it? Does it provide better coverage? Does
it have fewer exclusions? Does it cost less? And will it guarantee me
the access to health care that my family needs? That's one of the major
focuses of the populist values approach to health care reform.
So what else is important? Well, we spent time talking about how we
can move from a system that rewards volume of medical care to a new
model, a new system that rewards value outcomes. And we pay for
performance.
And I am very proud to be introducing an amendment, along with my
friends Lee Terry from Nebraska, a Republican, and Bart Stupak from
Michigan, who is the Chair of the Oversight and Investigations
Committee on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Medicare Payment
Improvement amendment, which has a very simple goal, to increase the
quality of health care in America and create long-term substantial cost
savings.
So what will this amendment do? Well, it starts by restructuring the
Medicare payment system that I talked about earlier, by finally adding
an incentive for physicians to provide high-quality care and decrease
costs. And the way the bill does it, it adds a figure that measures
value and includes it in the Medicare reimbursement equation. That
value figure measures both quality of care and the cost of care, two
components that directly relate to the overutilization of medical
services that dries up our national health care costs.

[[Page 18554]]

One of the things we know is that regions that provide high-quality
care at low cost will see their Medicare reimbursements improve and
increase because it's a reward for providing value in the system. In
contrast, regions that provide low-quality care at high cost will see
their reimbursements decrease.
Now, this may come as a shock to most people, but that's the way an
economic system is supposed to work: you provide incentives so that
people in a marketplace who provide the highest quality at the lowest
cost will create the most demand and drive consumers to their product
or services. Every student of economics 101 can tell you that's the way
economic models are supposed to work in this country.
But our health care payment system is flawed and it's reflected in
this chart, and it's reflected in the hundreds of billions of dollars
of waste in the system.
Now, one of the things that we can do is to shift from a fee-for-
service reimbursement model to one that rewards quality and shifts the
focus to provide efficient care.
Now, a lot of people mistakenly believe that when you're talking
about efficiencies, you're only talking about cutting cost. That is not
what I'm talking about, and that is not what the Populist Caucus values
are based upon, because true efficiency in a health care delivery
system is a system that consistently provides the lowest possible cost
for the highest possible value over the lifetime of a patient's care.
That is efficiency in health care delivery.
So this bill, the Braley-Terry-Stupak Medicare Payment Improvement
amendment accomplishes that and provides a transition from our current
quantity-based system to a value-based system.
How do we do that? Well, here's how: our amendment instructs the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to measure quality and cost for
hospital fee schedule areas, which have already been established, or
other more narrow areas if the Secretary deems that appropriate. That
could include hospital referral regions or even on down to the
individual provider.
Two, our amendment instructs the Secretary to create a quality
component to measure quality and to do that in consultation with the
already existing Agency for Health Care Quality and Research, and an
advisory group consisting of health care providers, health care plans,
and other government agencies and other knowledgeable entities,
including consumer groups that have knowledge about how to build
efficiency and reward value.
Three, the Braley-Terry-Stupak Medicare Improvement amendment ensures
an open and transparent process in the development of this quality
component. And during some of our conversations about how you could
possibly do this, we hear concerns expressed from people in this part
of the country: you're not taking into account this factor. We hear
concerns expressed from people in another part of the country: you're
not taking into account this factor.
Well, the harsh reality is the medical economists who've been
studying this issue for decades have already looked at every possible
racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, regional, cost-of-living, cost-of-
workforce factor and can find nothing to justify the reimbursement
disparities we see right now.
To give you an example of that, one of the most significant factors
contributing to overutilization in this country is what we pay for end-
of-life care. And one of the things that researchers have discovered is
spending more for end-of-life care does not yield better results and
does not make people more satisfied and their families more satisfied
with the care that they got. And, in fact, the exact opposite is true.
So let's talk about geographic disparities and how it relates to this
problem of overutilization. Researchers and medical economists who
looked at the last 2 years of spending in the life of Medicare patients
at Garfield Hospital in Los Angeles, concluded that, on average, we
were spending $106,000 per Medicare patient in the last 2 years of
their life. That was contrasted with the Mayo Clinic in Rochester,
Minnesota, 2 hours from where I live, another world class medical
facility, a teaching hospital. At the Mayo Clinic, patients in their
last 2 years of life, Medicare paid, on average, $33,000, a three-fold
decrease from what's being spent in Los Angeles.
And you can look at all those other factors I laid out earlier, and
none of them can justify that kind of a payment disparity. And, in
fact, when you look at the regions of the country that are spending the
most on those last 2 years of patient care in a patient's life, and you
look at the quality assessments that are used, you'll learn that
patients in the areas that spend much less are much more pleased with
their quality of life at that end-stage phase because more attention is
placed on providing hospice care, providing a way for those patients to
interact with their family on a meaningful basis, to be able to return
to their homes and spend as much time there as possible without a lot
of unnecessary tests and medical procedures that are very costly and do
very little to improve the length of the patient's life or the quality
of their life.

{time} 2340

That's why this bill, this amendment--the Braley, Terry, Stupak
Medicare Payment Improvement amendment--focuses on how we motivate
health care providers to get better outcomes, to spend less and to get
better quality care.
So, going back to my example, according to the 17 existing quality
factors that Medicare uses to assess facilities, the Mayo Clinic ranked
above Garfield Hospital in every single one of those quality
assessments. That is what we're focusing on--quality outcomes at the
best possible price over the life of a patient. That is efficiency.
Another component of the Braley, Terry, Stupak Medicare Payment
Improvement amendment is that it instructs the Secretary to create a
cost component to measure cost based upon the hospital fee schedule
area or upon other more narrow areas. That cost component is the cost
per Medicare beneficiary compared to the national average, which should
be a reasonable thing for anybody looking at how we spend money and at
how we decide who is outside the norm, who is below the norm, and
whether they're getting the types of results that they should.
The Braley, Terry, Stupak Medicare Payment Improvement amendment also
includes a risk adjuster in determining the cost component. This
ensures that any area with a significant at-risk population--high rates
of obesity and other socioeconomic risk factors that bill into the
system--shall have them taken into account when determining the cost
for that area.
Then the sixth component is to provide a transitional period from
2012-2014 when this quality cost figure is applied to the Medicare part
B reimbursement equation in place of the current work geographic
practice index. The work gypsy, as it's known, is currently used to
measure the value of a physician's work only through the amount of
inputs. Our amendment shifts the emphasis to a measure of value that is
quality and cost.
So you may be asking yourself: Well, how in the world do you measure
for quality in a system that has so many variables? Here is how the
Braley, Terry, Stupak Medicare Payment Improvement amendment measures
quality:
First, we look at health outcomes and at the health status for the
entire Medicare population. We also focus on patient safety, which
could fill up another hour by itself. Why? Because the Institute of
Medicine has published three seminal reports on patient safety, and it
has identified the enormous problem in this country with patient
safety. In fact, the Institute estimates that, every year, as many as
98,000 patients die because of preventable errors. This is the
Institute of Medicine, which is not a partisan entity. They also
estimate that, each year, over 1.5 million medication errors occur and
that every hospital patient is subjected to some type of medication
error every day they're in the hospital.
Patient satisfaction. This gets back to what we were talking about
with end-of-life treatment. Increasingly,

[[Page 18555]]

how patients receive care and respond to care is directly related to
how they perceive their access and quality of care. It also measures
hospital readmission rates because we know that one of the biggest
drivers of cost is that of patients who are discharged from the
hospital and who are later readmitted for conditions that may have been
prevented if there had been better information communicated to them or
if there had been better coordination of care upon their discharge.
Another factor we look at is mortality related to health care. Are
patients dying in greater numbers as a complication of a specific
problem? We know, for example, that hospital infections are an enormous
problem. They lead to many hospital readmissions, to prolonged patient
stays, to increased costs of care, and in the worst outcomes, to death.
We also know that many hospital infections are entirely preventable
from standard, simple precautions like hand-washing procedures that are
not only adopted but that are enforced.
Then other things that we use to measure quality are other items
determined by the Department of Health and Human Services, and if the
advisory group has other recommendations, we certainly want the
Secretary to take those into account.
How do you measure cost? Well, the cost component is measured through
the total annual, per-beneficiary Medicare expenditures under part A
for that area, and it also allows the Secretary to use other methods if
it's appropriate.
So how much cost savings are we talking about? Hundreds of billions
of dollars. We know that, by changing the incentives away from a fee-
for-service toward a fee-for-high-quality and low-cost model, we create
incentives for health care providers to improve their outcomes and to
decrease their costs. We can use those cost savings to build a health
care system that truly is universal and that helps us all.
Nobody said this challenge would be easy. Yet those of us who are
committed to comprehensive, universal health care that is paid for,
that is reliable, affordable, efficient, and high quality are committed
to spending the time necessary to improve this bill and to make it work
the way it needs to work. It has to work if we are to function as a
country.
So I ask you to join the Populist Caucus, to call your Representative
or your Senator and to make sure that they know how important health
care is to you, just the way my constituents called me, wrote me and
sent me e-mails.
This is a challenge. The time has come for bold action. Americans
deserve better. Americans demand better, and it is our responsibility
in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, to finally deliver on the promise of
health care for all that is high in quality and that is low in cost.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Lucas (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for July 20 on account of
bad weather and travel delays.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Lynch) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Poe of Texas) to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Souder, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, July 28.
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Bilirakis, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Broun of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

SENATE BILL REFERRED

A bill of the Senate of the following title was taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. Con. Res. 11. Concurrent resolution condemning all forms
of anti-Semitism and reaffirming the support of Congress for
the mandate of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-
Semitism, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 47 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 22, 2009, at
10 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 2 of Rule XXIV, executive communications were taken
from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

2745. A letter from the Acting Administrator, Risk
Management Agency, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Common Crop Insurance
Regulations, Basic Provisions (RIN: 0563-AC23) received July
1, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Agriculture.
2746. A letter from the Director, Office of National Drug
Control Policy, Executive Office of the President,
transmitting notification that the Office has designated
thirteen new counties in eight states as High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas (HIDTA), pursuant to Public Law 109-469; to
the Committee on Appropriations.
2747. A letter from the Chairman, Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, transmitting the System's annual
report to the Congress on the Presidential $1 Coin Program,
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5112 Public Law 109-145, section
104(3)(B) (119 Stat. 2670); to the Committee on Financial
Services.
2748. A letter from the Director, Office of Legal Affairs,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting the
Corporation's final rule -- Special Assessments (RIN: 3064-
AD35) received June 25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
2749. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting
the Corporation's final rule -- Interest Rate Restrictions on
Insured Depository Institutions That Are Not Well Capitalized
-- received June 25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Financial Services.
2750. A letter from the Acting Director, Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation, transmitting the Corporation's final
rule -- Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans;
Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans;
Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits --
received July 1, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to
the Committee on Education and Labor.
2751. A letter from the Assistant Legal Adviser for Treaty
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting copies of
international agreements, other than treaties, entered into
by the United States, pursuant to 1 U.S.C. 112b; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
2752. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting as required by section 401(c) of the
National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), and section
204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50
U.S.C. 1703(c), a six-month periodic report on the national
emergency with respect to Lebanon that was declared in
Executive Order 13441 of August 1, 2007; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
2753. A letter from the Inspector General, Department of
Commerce, transmitting the Inspector General's semiannual
report to Congress for the reporting period October 1, 2008
through March 31, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen.
Act) section 5(b); to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
2754. A letter from the President and Chief Executive
Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank Seattle, transmitting the
2008 management report of the Federal Home Loan Bank of
Seattle, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
2755. A letter from the President and Chief Executive
Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of Topeka, transmitting the
2008 Statements on System of Internal Controls of the Federal
Home Loan Bank of Topeka, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 9106; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2756. A letter from the Inspector General, General Services
Administration, transmitting the Administration's semiannual
report from the Office of the Inspector General during the 6-
month period ending March 31, 2009,

[[Page 18556]]

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act), section 5(b); to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
2757. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States;
Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery; Closure of the Elephant Trunk
Scallop Access Area to General Category Scallop Vessels
[Docket No.: 070817467-8554-02] (RIN: 0648-XP59) received
June 25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
2758. 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;
Greenland Turbot in the Aleutian Islands Subarea of the
Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area [Docket No.:
0810141351-9087-02] (RIN: 0648-XP60) received June 25, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
2759. 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; Deep-
Water Species Fishery by Catcher Processor Rockfish
Cooperatives in the Gulf of Alaska [Docket No.: 0910091344-
9056-02] (RIN: 0648-XP57) received June 25, 2009, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
2760. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries off West Coast States; Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery; Suspension of the Primary Pacific Whiting Season for
the Shore-based Sector South of 42 degrees North Latitude
[Docket No.: 090428799-9802-01] (RIN: 0648-XP43) received
June 25, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
2761. 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 Northern United States; Tilefish Fishery;
Quota Harvested for Full-time Tier 2 Category [Docket No.:
010319075-1217-02] (RIN: 0648-XP65) received June 25, 2009,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
2762. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Endangered and Threatened Species; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) Gulf of Maine
Distinct Population Segment [Docket No.: 0808061060-9710-02]
(RIN: 0648-AW77) received July 16, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
2763. A letter from the Acting Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Endangered and Threatened Species; Determination of
Endangered Status for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
Segment of Atlantic Salmon [Docket No.: 0808191116-9709-02]
(RIN: 0648-XJ93) received July 16, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
2764. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's
activites regarding prison rape abatement during calendar
year 2007, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 15604 Public Law 108-79,
section 5(b)(1); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
2765. A letter from the Federal Liaison Officer, Department
of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- July
20029 Revision of Patent Cooperation Treaty Procedures
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2009-0025] (RIN: 0651-AC34) received July
1, 2009, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
2766. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting an annual report concerning operations at the
Naval Petroleum Reserves for fiscal year 2008, pursuant to
the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, pursuant
to 10 U.S.C. 7431(C); jointly to the Committees on Armed
Services and Energy and Commerce.

____________________

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. TOWNS: Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
H.R. 22. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States
Code, to allow the United States Postal Service to pay its
share of contributions for annuitants' health benefits out of
the Postal Service retiree Health Benefits Fund; with an
amendment (Rept. 111-216). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. ARCURI: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 665. A
resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2920) to reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go requirement
of budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending
legislation, enforced by the threat of annual, automatic
sequestration (Rept. 111-217). Referred to the House
Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. Peters,
Ms. Kilroy, Mr. Watt, Mr. Capuano, Mr. Al Green of
Texas, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Hinojosa):
H.R. 3269. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 to provide shareholders with an advisory vote on
executive compensation and to prevent perverse incentives in
the compensation practices of financial institutions; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. BISHOP of New York (for himself and Mr. Israel):
H.R. 3270. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act to add New York to the New
England Fishery Management Council, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Mr. Kirk, and Mr.
McGovern):
H.R. 3271. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to improve commuting and transportation options; to the
Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ELLISON:
H.R. 3272. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 to add requirements for board of directors committees
regarding risk management and compensation policies, to
require non-binding shareholder votes on executive
compensation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
By Mr. HOLT (for himself, Mr. Higgins, and Mr. Lee of
New York):
H.R. 3273. A bill to require the implementation of certain
recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board,
to require the establishment of national standards with
respect to flight requirements for pilots, to require the
development of fatigue management plans, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. McCarthy of California,
Mr. Wittman, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Rooney, and Mr. Franks
of Arizona):
H.R. 3274. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 to provide members of the Armed Forces and their
family members equal access to voter registration assistance,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on House
Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Armed
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. MARKEY of Colorado (for herself and Mr. Smith of
Nebraska):
H.R. 3275. A bill to amend the definition of commercial
motor vehicle in section 31101 of title 49, United States
Code, to exclude certain farm vehicles, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr.
Upton):
H.R. 3276. A bill to promote the production of molybdenum-
99 in the United States for medical isotope production, and
to condition and phase out the export of highly enriched
uranium for the production of medical isotopes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin (for herself, Ms. Bordallo,
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Ms. Edwards of
Maryland, Mr. Filner, Ms. Norton, Mr. Massa, Mr.
Rangel, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Sires, and Mr. Stark):
H.R. 3277. A bill to amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966
to establish a program to improve the health and education of
children through grants to expand school breakfast programs,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and
Labor.
By Mr. OBERSTAR:
H.R. 3278. A bill to provide for a hospital in Cass County,
Minnesota; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H.R. 3279. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish in the Department of Veterans Affairs centers of
excellence for rural health research, education, and clinical
activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.

[[Page 18557]]

By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H.R. 3280. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish a grant program to assist veterans in
highly rural areas by providing transportation to medical
centers; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H.R. 3281. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to carry out demonstration projects related to
providing care for veterans in rural areas; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H.R. 3282. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to provide certain veterans with readjustment and
mental health care services, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. RODRIGUEZ:
H.R. 3283. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
allow for reimbursement of certain travel at a set rate, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. SHERMAN (for himself, Mr. Royce, and Mr. Klein
of Florida):
H.R. 3284. A bill to prohibit the heads of executive
agencies from entering into or renewing procurement contracts
with persons that export certain computer or
telecommunications technologies to Iran, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform.
By Mr. SNYDER:
H.R. 3285. A bill to amend that portion of title 28, United
States Code, commonly called the Tort Claims Act, in order to
assure that individuals accompanying Federal employees who
are engaged in missions for the United States Government in
foreign countries have legal recourse against the Government
for certain tort claims, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. MALONEY (for herself, Ms. Speier, Mr. Boucher,
Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. George Miller of California, Mrs.
Capps, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Meek of Florida,
Mr. McGovern, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Loebsack,
Mr. Yarmuth, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Ackerman,
Mr. Farr, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Sarbanes, Ms.
DeLauro, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Peterson,
Mr. Olver, Ms. Watson, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Ellison, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Tsongas, Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Richardson, Mr.
Fattah, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr.
Braley of Iowa, Ms. Herseth Sandlin, Mr. Israel, Mr.
Sires, Mr. Edwards of Texas, Mr. Clay, Mr. Moore of
Kansas, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Engel,
Mr. Dingell, Mrs. Biggert, Ms. DeGette, Mr. LoBiondo,
Mr. Higgins, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Stark, Mr. Cohen, Mr.
Grayson, Mr. Filner, Mr. Cuellar, Ms. Kilroy, and Ms.
Loretta Sanchez of California):
H.J. Res. 61. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relative to equal
rights for men and women; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MORAN of Kansas:
H. Res. 663. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that any savings under the Medicare
Program should be invested back into the Medicare Program,
rather than creating new entitlement programs; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. CLAY (for himself, Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan,
Mr. Cummings, and Ms. Fallin):
H. Res. 664. A resolution congratulating and honoring
Barnes Jewish Hospital, Henry Ford Medical Center, Johns
Hopkins Hospital, and Integris Baptist Hospital for the
completion of a successful 16 person kidney transplant; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. WOLF (for himself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Cooper, Mr.
Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
McDermott, Mr. Rangel, and Mr. Sestak):
H. Res. 666. A resolution recognizing Project HOPE for 50
years of exceptional service to improve and save the lives of
millions of children and adults in developing nations through
humanitarian assistance and health education; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 13: Mr. Lynch.
H.R. 39: Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 197: Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin.
H.R. 204: Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Castor of Florida.
H.R. 275: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Reyes, and Ms.
Giffords.
H.R. 406: Ms. DeLauro.
H.R. 413: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
Watt, Mr. Reichert, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Hodes.
H.R. 422: Mr. Peters.
H.R. 450: Mr. Olson.
H.R. 571: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Gutierrez, and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 614: Mr. Latta, Mr. Culberson, and Mr. Taylor.
H.R. 621: Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Young of Alaska.
H.R. 635: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 690: Mr. Latta, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Boren, and Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H.R. 734: Ms. Clarke and Ms. Edwards of Maryland.
H.R. 745: Mr. Massa.
H.R. 816: Mr. Kratovil.
H.R. 840: Mr. Baird and Mr. Maffei.
H.R. 859: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 948: Mr. Hodes.
H.R. 949: Mr. Kratovil.
H.R. 997: Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 1017: Ms. Titus.
H.R. 1064: Mr. Wu.
H.R. 1074: Mr. Issa and Mrs. Halvorson.
H.R. 1075: Mr. Gingrey of Georgia.
H.R. 1079: Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Cardoza.
H.R. 1101: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 1103: Mr. Sires.
H.R. 1158: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 1188: Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Mr. Michaud, and Mr.
Lynch.
H.R. 1189: Mr. Cardoza.
H.R. 1204: Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 1214: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 1324: Mr. Peterson and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 1327: Mr. Linder, Ms. Granger, Mr. Kratovil, Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Chaffetz, Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
of Florida, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Higgins, and Mr.
Olson.
H.R. 1361: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1389: Mr. Nadler of New York.
H.R. 1392: Mr. Spratt and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 1402: Mr. Upton and Mr. Sessions.
H.R. 1415: Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 1428: Mr. Forbes.
H.R. 1441: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky.
H.R. 1458: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 1546: Mr. Grayson.
H.R. 1588: Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
H.R. 1614: Mr. LaTourette.
H.R. 1625: Mr. Farr, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr.
Berman.
H.R. 1693: Ms. Woolsey and Mr. Ellison.
H.R. 1826: Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Eshoo.
H.R. 1831: Mr. Olson, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr.
Kirk.
H.R. 1835: Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1884: Mr. Boccieri, Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Mr. Rogers of
Kentucky, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Titus, and Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 1891: Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H.R. 1992: Mr. Nadler of New York.
H.R. 2000: Mr. Kildee and Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 2055: Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 2060: Mr. Cohen and Mr. Schauer.
H.R. 2061: Mr. Kline of Minnesota.
H.R. 2072: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 2081: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 2089: Mr. Grayson.
H.R. 2095: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 2140: Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 2144: Mr. Hoekstra.
H.R. 2159: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 2215: Mr. Stupak.
H.R. 2222: Mr. McGovern and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 2254: Mr. Doggett.
H.R. 2267: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H.R. 2476: Mrs. Lummis.
H.R. 2492: Mr. Gordon of Tennessee and Mr. Grayson.
H.R. 2499: Mrs. Blackburn.
H.R. 2502: Mr. Kratovil.
H.R. 2542: Mr. Wexler.
H.R. 2558: Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2560: Mr. Kennedy.
H.R. 2568: Mr. Hall of Texas.
H.R. 2573: Mr. Peterson, Ms. Hirono, Mr. McGovern, and Mr.
Grijalva.
H.R. 2626: Mr. Boustany.
H.R. 2648: Ms. McCollum.
H.R. 2695: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 2724: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 2807: Mr. Reichert.
H.R. 2815: Mr. Connolly of Virginia.
H.R. 2870: Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Filner, Mr. Pastor
of Arizona, and Mr. Nadler of New York.
H.R. 2882: Mr. Grayson.
H.R. 2891: Mr. Massa and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 2909: Ms. Tsongas.
H.R. 2935: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Pierluisi, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr.
Oberstar, Mr. Filner and Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 2936: Mr. Schauer, Ms. Fudge, and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 2941: Mr. Boozman and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 3006: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 3011: Mr. Barrow.
H.R. 3040: Mr. Grayson and Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 3042: Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 3131: Mr. Wittman.
H.R. 3141: Mr. Rehberg.

[[Page 18558]]

H.R. 3154: Mr. Cardoza and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 3155: Mr. Klein of Florida and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 3166: Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
H.R. 3169: Mr. Cao.
H.R. 3193: Mr. Putnam.
H.R. 3201: Mrs. Lummis.
H.R. 3202: Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Whitfield.
H.R. 3203: Mrs. Lummis.
H.R. 3226: Mr. Burton of Indiana and Mr. Simpson.
H.R. 3227: Mr. McCotter, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Boswell, and Mr.
Filner.
H.R. 3233: Mr. Rooney.
H.R. 3245: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 3250: Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Arcuri, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Murphy of New York.
H.R. 3252: Mr. Filner.
H. J. Res. 56: Mr. Welch.
H. Con. Res. 49: Mr. Rush, Mr. Scalise, and Mr. Adler of
New Jersey.
H. Con. Res. 74: Ms. Berkley and Mr. Grijalva.
H. Con. Res. 94: Mr. Tanner.
H. Con. Res. 160: Mr. Kanjorski.
H. Res. 57: Mr. Skelton.
H. Res. 111: Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mr. Costa, and Mr.
Lamborn.
H. Res. 270: Mr. Davis of Alabama.
H. Res. 311: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, and Mr. Manzullo.
H. Res. 376: Mr. Massa, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Cao, Mr. Arcuri, and Mr. Franks of
Arizona.
H. Res. 487: Mr. Schauer.
H. Res. 508: Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Boyd, and Mr. Sherman.
H. Res. 593: Mr. Grayson.
H. Res. 605: Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Akin, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Lance,
Mr. Issa, Mr. Michaud, and Mr. Bartlett.
H. Res. 619: Mr. Latham, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania,
and Mr. Royce.
H. Res. 620: Mr. Grijalva.
H. Res. 630: Mr. Welch, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Berry,
Ms. McCollum, Mr. Murtha, and Mr. Mollohan.
H. Res. 631: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Smith
of New Jersey, and Mr. Barton of Texas.
H. Res. 641: Mr. Wexler, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Pence, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Blunt, Mr.
Manzullo, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Carter, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Royce,
Mr. Wolf, Mr. Cao, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Chaffetz,
Mr. Pitts, and Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H. Res. 654: Mr. Filner.

____________________

CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS

Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:

Offered by Mr. Spratt

H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, does
not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits,
or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule
XXI.

Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

The amendment to be offered by Representative Ryan of
Wisconsin, or a designee, to H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2009, does not contain any congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as
defined in clause 9 of rule XXI.

[[Page 18559]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LEONARD L. BOSWELL

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. BOSWELL. Madam Speaker, I regret missing afternoon and evening
votes from the House on July 20th. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 593, 594, 595.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, I submit the following statement regarding
Member Requests Associated with the following bills: The FY2010
National Defense Authorization Act, the FY2010 Military Construction/VA
Appropriations Act, the FY2010 Department of Interior and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, and the FY2010 Department of Agriculture
Appropriations Act
1. Project--Integrated Electrical Starter/Generator (IES/G)
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: GE Aviation Systems, Electrical
Power
Address of Requesting Entity: 740 E. National Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
Description of Request: The funding would be used to help develop a
pre-prototype, sensor-less IES/G to demonstrate the feasibility of
supplying both main engine start function and the electrical power
necessary to operate all aircraft systems.
2. Project--Production of Nanocomposites for Aeorospace Applications
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: NanoSperse, LLC
Address of Requesting Entity: 2000 Composite Drive, Kettering, OH
45420
Description of Request: The funding being requested will transition
nano-materials technology into Air Force applications.
3. Project--Open Source Research Centers
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Radiance Technologies
Address of Requesting Entity: 3100 Presidential Dr, Suite 200,
Fairborn, Ohio 45324
Description of Request: The funding being requested will provide
support to government agencies that are already overburdened with
classified research requirements and do not have resources to meet the
open source requirements.
4. Project--Tactical Metal Fabrication System (TacFab)
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Army, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: BuyCASTINGS.com, Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2411 Crosspointe Drive, Miamisburg, OH
45342
Description of Request: The funding being requested will help
Tactical Metal Fabrication (TacFab) System design, develop and build a
mobile, containerized foundry, deployable overseas as a companion to
RMS, the Army's Rapid Manufacturing System.
5. Project--Replace West Ramp, Phase 2
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, Mil Con
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Address of Requesting Entity: Dayton, OH
Description of Request: The funding would be used to remove and
replace existing concrete pavement, base, and adjacent paved shoulders
at the West Ramp; also relocate underground utilities and warm-up pad.
Provide taxiwedge lighting, blast deflector, drainage and markings, and
all necessary support.
6. Project--Nano-Composite Structures Manufacturing Technology
Development
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Vector Composites, Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 3251 McCall Street Dayton, OH 45417
Description of Request: The funding being requested will enable the
nano-composite materials and structures manufacturing technology
development and demonstration from this R&D project to meet national
defense needs by providing lighter weight and lower cost composite
structures manufacturing processes for defense systems applications
such as sensor and weapon platforms.
7. Project--Commercialization of High-Rate Polyimide Composites for
Military and Commercial Aircraft
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Renegade Materials Corporation
Address of Requesting Entity: 3363 South Tech Blvd. Springboro, Ohio
45342
Description of Request: The funding being requested will make it
possible to complete the materials testing database which is essential
to all aircraft qualifications that the new, high temperature, high-
rate polyimide composite materials will have to successfully pass in
order to see use on military and commercial aircraft.
8. Project--Rapid Automated Processing of Advanced Low Observables
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ATK Aerospace Structures
Address of Requesting Entity: 1365 Technology Court, Dayton, Ohio
45430
Description of Request: The funding being requested will make it
possible to develop an automated, cost savings Frequency Selective
Surfaces (FSS) process that military combat aircraft and naval vessels
rely extensively on to provide situational awareness and threat
termination.
9. Project--Technical Sensors Integrated Ground Station
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
Address of Requesting Entity: 2875 Presidential Drive; Suite 180
Fairborn, OH 45324
Description of Request: The funding being requested will enable the
Air Force, through NASIC, to satisfy ODNI guidance to transition Tech
Sensors into an operational environment.
10. Project--Advanced Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC)
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Advanced Technical Intelligence
Center for Human Capital Development (ATIC)
Address of Requesting Entity: 2685 Hibiscus Way, Suite 110,
Beavercreek, OH 45431
Description of Request: The funding being requested will enable ATIC
to continue and expand its mission to educate future technical
intelligence experts while conducting basic research necessary to
sustain technology advancements in support of the Intelligence
Community and the warfighter.
11. Project--Advanced Meta Materials
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2647
Account: Air Force, RDT&E
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Mound Laser & Photonics Center, Inc.
Address of Requesting Entity: 965 Capstone Drive, Suite 308,
Miamisburg, OH 45342
Description of Request: The funding being requested will be used to
design, model, and fabricate meta material systems that could be
incorporated into aircraft antenna designs which could be used to
significantly improve antenna technology and performance.
12. Project--The City of Vandalia for airport access road water and
sewer extensions
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2996
Account: STAG Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Project

[[Page 18560]]

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Vandalia, Vandalia, OH
Address of Requesting Entity: 333 James Bohanan Drive, Vandalia, OH
45377
Description of Request: Funding for this project will go toward the
extension of water and sanitary sewer lines west from Peters Pike
across the Airport Access Road. The installation of these utilities
will increase the value of the property and pave the way for future
economic development on the west side of Vandalia adjacent to the
Dayton International Airport.
13. Project--Replace West Ramp, Phase 2
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 3082
Account: Air Force, Mil Con
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
Address of Requesting Entity: Dayton, OH
Description of Request: The funding would be used to remove and
replace existing concrete pavement, base, and adjacent paved shoulders
at the West Ramp; and also relocate underground utilities and warm-up
pad. Provide taxiwedge lighting, blast deflectors, drainage and
markings, and all necessary support.
14. Project--Dietary Intervention, OH
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 2997
Account: RE/FA
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Ohio Agriculture Research and
Development Center
Address of Requesting Entity: 1680 Madison Ave., Wooster, OH 44691
Description of Request: This phase of the project is to initiate a
trial to: (1) evaluate the ability of freeze-dried black raspberries
(FBR) to prevent the recurrence of colorectal cancer; (2) initiate a
trial to determine the ability of FBR to prevent gastric (stomach)
cancer; and (3) investigate the metabolism of berry ellagitannins and
anthocyanins and determine the bioactivity of the metabolites.
15. Project--Holes Creek, West Carrollton, OH
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Corps of Engineers Construction
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Miami Conservancy District
Address of Requesting Entity: 38 East Monument Avenue, Dayton, OH
45402
Description of Request: This project protects approximately 600 homes
in West Carrollton, Moraine and Miami Township (Montgomery County) from
flooding. Funds will go toward the construction of a levee and
floodwall to also protect 13 commercial and industrial properties north
of the creek, and purchase three flood-prone properties south of the
creek and remove the structures, completing this flood protection
project.
16. Project--Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, OH: City of
Hillsboro, Highland County, OH
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Hillsboro, Ohio
Address of Requesting Entity: 130 N. High Street, Hillsboro, Ohio
45133
Description of Request: Hillsboro, Ohio, located in rural Highland
County is in need of updating its Wastewater Treatment Facility and
wastewater infrastructure. Specifically, the funds requested would be
used for the construction of needed improvements to their wastewater
treatment plant and the installation of additional equalization basins.
Funds will also be used to upgrade aging water infrastructure for the
treatment of waste.
17. Project--Ohio Environmental Infrastructure, OH: Village of
Blanchester, Clinton County, OH
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Corps of Engineers, Construction
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Village of Blanchester, Ohio
Address of Requesting Entity: 318 E. Main Street, Suite 302, PO Box
158 Blanchester, Ohio 45107
Description of Request: Blanchester, Ohio located in rural Clinton
County, Ohio has a wastewater treatment system which is over capacity.
Funds for this project will be used to increase treatment system
capacity to assist this community in their compliance with state EPA
standards.
18. Project--Miamisburg Mound Energy Park Redevelopment
Requesting Member: Michael Turner
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Department of Energy, Other Defense Activities
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Miamisburg Mound Community
Improvement Corporation
Address of Requesting Entity: 965 Capstone Drive, P.O. Box 232
Miamisburg, Ohio 45342
Description of Request: Funds for this project will go toward the
redevelopment of the Miamisburg Mound, a former Department of Energy
facility which is currently undergoing extensive environmental
remediation. The site will be redeveloped into a science and technology
business park.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE ``GREEN ROUTES TO WORK ACT OF 2009''

______

HON. EARL BLUMENAUER

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, Americans have made it clear that they
want transportation options. In a recent study by the Pew Charitable
Trusts, 52% of Americans support increased funding for bike, pedestrian
and public transportation programs. On average, transportation costs
are now Americans' second largest expense after housing. This impacts
on business owners, as employees spend over 4.2 billion hours stuck in
traffic each year--averaging up to almost a week per year per employee.
If more Americans commute using alternative modes of transportation, we
will see improvements in the economy, workplace productivity, and
quality of life.
In order to help communities provide families with more choices and
level the playing field for people who want to be less auto-dependent,
the federal government must be a better partner in these efforts.
This is why I am introducing the ``Green Routes to Work Act of
2009,'' which will provide consumers with commuting choices. The bill
will help companies provide their employees with options, improve
service to deal with increased demand and ensure that the federal
government leads by example.
As gas prices increase, many Americans are already changing their
daily behaviors to decrease fuel costs: taking fewer trips, keeping
their cars tuned, even trading in their gas guzzlers for more fuel-
efficient models. Through the incentives in this bill, the federal
government can support consumers who wish to use environmentally
friendly, active transportation modes that save them money in the long
run, such as public transit, carpooling, biking, walking and
telecommuting.
For too long, the federal government has supported commuters who
drove to work, but has not helped those who use other methods of
transportation. The passage of legislation last year to allow employers
to provide transportation fringe benefits to bike commuters was a good
first step. But with a changing climate, expanding waistlines and more
congested roadways, it's time for the federal government to become more
aggressive in helping to provide choices. This not only makes
environmental and public health sense, it makes economic sense: at $4 a
gallon gasoline, American families can save $5.6 billion each year on
gasoline costs by using transit. Bicycle commuters annually save an
average of $1,825 in auto-related costs, conserve 145 gallons of
gasoline, and avoid 50 hours of gridlock traffic.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation to
support businesses in their effort to provide choices for commuting
employees.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. K. MICHAEL CONAWAY

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information
regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2997--Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010.
A request to Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSRESS), Special Research Grants Account, to the Animal Fiber
Research Program. This funding would assist in the ongoing Wool
Research Program. This program is a partnership between the Texas
Agriculture Experiment Station in San Angelo, TX, New Mexico State
University and Montana State University. This program helps enhance the
quality and quantity of wool and mohair produced in this country. In
addition, significant efforts are being made to work with small
ruminants as a means to control invasive brush which is a major issue
in many parts of Texas degrading rangelands and taking precious water.
The project is located at 7887, U.S. Highway 87N, San Angelo, Texas,
76901.
A request to Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSRESS),

[[Page 18561]]

Special Research Grants Account to continue partial funding of the
state-of-the-art multidisciplinary research approach at the
International Cotton Center at Texas Tech University. The International
Cotton Center conducts cotton research programs for cotton production
systems and provides market and policy analysis for natural fibers
(cotton, wool, and mohair) in an effort to increase profitability and
maintain viability of all segments of the U.S. cotton industry in an
increasingly competitive and volatile international market. The project
research would be centrally located at Texas Tech University, located
at 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409.
A request to Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSRESS), Special Research Grants Account, to continue partial
funding for the Center for Food Industry Excellence at Texas Tech
University. The Center for Food Industry Excellence is a federal and
state supported program that conducts systematic development and
evaluations of production, processing and preparation methods of food
products to achieve a safer and more nutritious food supply. The
project research would be centrally located at Texas Tech University,
located at 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, Texas 79409.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican
Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following
information regarding earmarks I received as part of the FY 10 Energy
and Water Development Appropriation Act.
Requesting Member: Rep. Christopher H. Smith
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Project name: Wreck Pond Clean-Up
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Investigations
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza, Room 2109, New York, NY 10278-0090.
Description of Request: Enable the Army Corps to continue and further
its partnerships with state and local officials in the effort to fully
clear toxic contamination from Wreck Pond. Overflow contaminants from
Wreck Pond pollute the Ocean and such pollution has been responsible
for more than 80% of all beach closings on the New Jersey shore.
Planned remedies such as dredging will reduce flooding, ensure improved
water quality, protect ocean swimmers and prevent beach closings.
Project name: Assunpink Creek Flood Mitigation in Hamilton Township
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Section 205
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square
East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Description of Request: Investigate flooding problems along the
Assunpink Creek in Hamilton Township, NJ--an area which has frequent
water control problems and environmental degradation--to save
structures and contents from flood damage, alleviate cleanup costs for
residents in this highly urbanized setting of the area.
Project name: Assunpink Creek Day Lighting Initiative in Trenton
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Section 1135
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square
East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Description of Request: The project seeks to day light Assunpink
Creek along the Broad Street culvert--which connects various greenway
areas and transportation facilities. The corps reports that this will
improve anadromous fish migration along Assunpink Creek in Trenton. The
project also benefits businesses adjacent to the site and provides
recreational, historical and educational opportunities for the
community.
Project name: Delaware River Bank Protection, Philadelphia to Trenton
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Operation and Maintenance
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square
East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Description of Request: Maintain and inspect bank protection works,
provide bridge reconstruction and perform maintenance dredging of lower
reach and turning basin. This project will restore safe and economical
navigating depths in the Florence Township area. Funding will be used
for maintenance dredging of lower reach and turning basin and to
construct three upland disposal sites, and for disposal area
maintenance & construction and placement of rip-rap material.
Project name: New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Operation and Maintenance
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square
East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Description of Request: Provides a safe, reliable, and efficient
navigation channel for the East Coast's largest and the 5th most
valuable commercial fishing fleet in the US, as well as nine US Coast
Guard Stations. This funding will be used to perform maintenance
dredging of the entrance channel.
Project name: NJ Shore Protection for Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Construction
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, 26
Federal Plaza, Room 2109, New York, NY 10278-0090.
Description of Request: Funding would be used to continue the
renourishment phase of the Sandy Hook to Barnegat Inlet, NJ shore
protection project. Beach replenishment remedies have been extremely
effective in the section of the Jersey shore and ongoing funding is
needed to sustain the progress made through the initial successful
federal/state shared investment. New Jersey's beaches are a vital
recreational and economic resource. Replenishment and sustained
maintenance of healthy beaches help protect residents, local
businesses, tourist attractions and natural habitats.
Project name: Comprehensive Restoration of the Delaware River
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Investigations
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square
East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Description of Request: Continue the Delaware River plan formulation
and evaluation of alternative solutions and mitigation remedies to the
region's problems regarding flooding along the river and tributaries.
This project will help alleviate significant flood damage for residents
while providing ecosystem restoration, protection and enhancement and
restoration of public lands.
Project name: Manasquan River Maintenance
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Operation and Maintenance
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Army Corps of Engineers
Address of Requesting Entity: The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square
East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Description of Request: Manasquan River connects the New Jersey
Intracoastal Waterway with the Atlantic Ocean. This navigation project
provides for 2 jetties; a channel 14 feet deep and 250 feet wide from
the ocean to the inner end of the north jetty; and a channel 12 feet
deep and 100 to 300 feet wide extending to within 300 feet of the
railroad bridge. This funding will be used to perform maintenance
dredging of the channel.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. JOHN R. CARTER

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information
regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, Energy and Water
Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
Requesting Member: John R. Carter
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Army Corps of Engineers--Investigations
Requesting entity: Brazos River Authority
Address of Requesting Entity: 4600 Cobb Drive, Waco, TX
Description: $300,000 in funding from the Investigations account of
the Army Corps of Engineers for the Middle Brazos River. This program
will investigate increasing the water

[[Page 18562]]

supply of the Middle Brazos Basin. The COE and the Brazos River
Authority (BRA) are evaluating the feasibility of increasing the water
supply of the Middle Brazos basin by raising lake levels (reallocating
flood pool storage to water supply). This is a long-term project aimed
at developing additional water at existing reservoir sites for future
needs. The $300,000 will be spent by the COE on an interim feasibility
study.
Requesting Member: John R. Carter
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Dept. of Energy--EERE
Requesting entity: City of Georgetown, TX
Address of Requesting Entity: 113 E. 8th Street, Georgetown TX 78626
Description: The City of Georgetown is a municipal electric power
provider, dedicated to efficiently lowering the cost of energy to the
customers within their service area. $100,000 in funding is for the
planning, engineering and development of a solar power project in
partnership with GREX and the Life Sciences Center, Georgetown, Texas.
This solar project will be used as a template type ``pilot project'' to
encourage other commercial customers inside our service territory to
consider installing similar renewable distributed power facilities to
help the customer reduce the consumption of power generated by fossil
fueled power plants and benefit the city power system by controlling
voltage and maintaining power quality.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF CAPTAIN ENRIQUE SADSAD UPON RECEIVING THE 2009
MILITARY LEADER OF THE YEAR AWARD

______

HON. JEFF MILLER

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Captain Enrique Sadsad, who has received the 2009 Military Leader of
the Year Award, given by the Association of Defense Communities.
Captain Sadsad's tireless pursuit of fostering community bonds,
developing defense partnerships and effectively leading the Training
Air Wing Five for the Naval Air Station Whiting Field has made a
lasting difference in the lives of many in my district.
Captain Sadsad effectively fulfills his military mission through
superior leadership of Training Air Wing Five. His duties include
coordinating fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft pilot training for
Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Air Force and pilots from over a dozen
different countries. Under Captain Sadsad's direction, the Training Air
Wing Five contributes to 10% of all Naval Flight hours flown world-
wide. Captain Sadsad still finds the time to go above and beyond his
call of duty to actively engage in the community exemplified through
his involvement with numerous programs. Chief among them include; the
Covenant Hospice Veteran program, American Cancer Society, Habitat for
Humanity, Junior Reserve Officer Training Course, Partners-in-
Education, Manna Food Bank, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and the Drug
Education for Youth program.
Moreover, Captain Sadsad's successful joint venture with County and
State Encroachment Partnering has resulted in the acquisition of more
than 1,000 acres of conservation easements contributing to the
protection of the mission at NAS Whiting Field. In addition, Captain
Sadsad has sought to diligently work with resource management to
oversee the preservation of several rare, threatened and endangered
wildlife species as well as overseeing 2,351 acres of forestland, 317
acres of wetlands, and 742 acres in Agricultural leases.
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I would like
to thank Captain Enrique Sadsad for his dedicated efforts of training
our service men and women and conscientiously working to improve the
community of Northwest Florida. Vicki and I send him our best wishes
for continued success.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 595, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO OBIE V. BRANDON

______

HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Obie Brandon, a
dear friend and community leader who passed away last week after a
valiant fight against cancer. Obie was a prominent labor leader in the
Sacramento Region, and his death leaves a great void in the fight for
the rights of working families and the labor movement. As his family,
friends, and labor brothers and sisters gather to honor and remember
his wonderful life, I ask all my colleagues to join me in saluting one
of Sacramento's most well-respected figures.
Obie was an admired advocate for the working class citizens and an
unapologetic champion for the rights of the underserved and needy.
Obie's roots in labor began early in his life with his first career
beginning in 1962 as a flour miller for Pillsbury. After the plant
closed, he continued his career with United Grocers until he was called
for military service in Vietnam. After serving his country for two
years in Vietnam, Obie returned to his position with United Grocers. He
was a steadfast advocate of labor and continued his support of labor by
becoming an active member of the International Longshoremen's Warehouse
Union Local 17. He began as the Recording-Secretary for the ILWU Local
17 in 1970 and soon became the Local's President in 1973.
Obie was widely recognized as a tough negotiator and strong advocate
for the rights of Union labor members. His ardent support for the labor
movement soon caught the attention of Roy Mack of the United Food and
Commercial Workers Local 498. Obie later joined Mack on the staff of
the Local 498, where only eight months into his membership he was
elected Secretary-Treasurer, a position he would hold from 1982 to
1990. Later, along with other labor leaders, Obie helped form the
Coalition of Organized Labor Board, an organization of 24 local Unions
representing some 150,000 members and committed to bringing Unions
together to provide mutual support. He served until his passing as the
group's Secretary-Treasurer.
Through his advocacy at the local and state levels, Obie became an
important ambassador between labor Unions and Commercial Enterprises.
In addition to his work with the UFCW, Obie served as Vice President of
the Sacramento Central Labor Council, AFL-CIO. He was a passionate
supporter of working class citizens and their rights through labor
Unions, and his ardor and commitment to these issues resonated in his
advocacy. Obie contributed to the growth and maturity of countless
people and was a true champion of the labor movement.
Madam Speaker, as Obie Brandon's wife Kathy, his children Tera Clizbe
and Eric Brandon, his three grandchildren, Cameron, Brandon and Taylor,
and his friends gather to honor his wonderful legacy and countless
contributions, I am honored to pay tribute to him. I ask all my
colleagues to pause and join me in paying respect to an extraordinarily
loving man, Obie Brandon.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. CLIFF STEARNS

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information
regarding earmarks I have received in the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations Act, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act and the
Energy and Water Appropriations Act.
Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns
Bill Number: H.R. 2847
Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Byrne Discretionary Grants
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Alachua County, FL
Address of Requesting Entity: 12 South East 1st Street, Gainesville,
FL 32601
Description of Request: I have secured $900,000 for Alachua County,
FL. Alachua County will use the funds to provide an integrated,
coordinated continuum of care using evidenced-based practices where
there will be ``no wrong door'' to enter treatment. Persons will be
assessed and provided with a level of treatment consistent with
individual need. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any
financial interest in this project.
Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns
Bill Number: H.R. 2847
Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Juvenile Justice
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Devereux Kids Florida

[[Page 18563]]

Address of Requesting Entity: 1629 NW 4th Street, Suite 102, Ocala,
FL 34475
Description of Request: I have secured $200,000 for Devereux Kids
Florida. The funding will be used by Devereux Kids Florida to provide
support services and interdiction on behalf of children has been
delegated to regional coordinating bodies and local community-based
organizations. Devereux Kids has developed a successful model of
providing information, family services and reunification services which
currently serves 10 counties. I certify that neither I nor my spouse
has any financial interest in this project.
Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns
Bill Number: H.R. 2847
Account: Department of Justice, OJP--Juvenile Justice
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: ARISE Foundation
Address of Requesting Entity: 824 US Highway 1, Suite 240, North Palm
Beach, FL 33408
Description of Request: I have secured $550,000 for the ARISE
Foundation. The funding will be used by the ARISE Foundation to provide
Florida Juvenile Justice Staff on a state-wide basis with in depth
training and specialized ARISE Life Management Skills lessons to
conduct guided group discussions with incarcerated high-risk youth. I
certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this
project.
Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns
Bill Number: H.R. 2892
Account: FEMA
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Lake County, FL
Address of Requesting Entity: 315 West Main Street, Tavares, FL 32778
Description of Request: I have secured $800,000 for Lake County, FL.
The funding will be used by Lake County, FL to provide a desperately
needed full-time dedicated Emergency Operations Center for Lake County,
FL. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest
in this project.
Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: Corp of Engineers--Construction
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: The Jacksonville Port Authority
Address of Requesting Entity: 2831 Talleyrand Avenue, Jacksonville,
FL 32206
Description of Request: I have secured $1,000,000 for the
Jacksonville Port Authority. The funding will be used by the
Jacksonville Port Authority for continuing construction for dredging
improvements due to both safety and economic risks posed by the
narrowness of the channel, as recommended by the Army Corps of
Engineers. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial
interest in this project.
Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: DOE--EERE
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Central Florida Community College
Address of Requesting Entity: Post Office Box 1388, Ocala, FL 34478
Description of Request: I have secured $300,000 for Central Florida
Community College. The funding will be used by Central Florida
Community College to purchase and install equipment to reduce energy
losses, use energy more efficiently, and capture energy from natural
sunlight. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial
interest in this project.
Requesting Member: Congressman Cliff Stearns
Bill Number: H.R. 3183
Account: DOE--Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Florida Institute for Human and
Machine Cognition
Address of Requesting Entity: 15 Southeast Osceola Avenue, Ocala, FL
34471
Description of Request: I have secured $750,000 for the Florida
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. The funding will be used by
the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition to build upon
proven, biologically-inspired technology to create a system-centric
defense infrastructure for SCADA systems that will greatly improve
their intrinsic resilience to environmental effects and malicious
attacks. I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial
interest in this project.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ROBERT J. WITTMAN

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. WITTMAN. Madam Speaker, I missed the following rollcall votes on
July 20, 2009 because I was unavoidably detained while traveling in the
district. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall
vote 593 (motion to approve the Journal) and ``aye'' on rollcall votes
594 (a motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 607) and 595 (a
motion to suspend the rules and agree to H.R. 2245).

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. HAROLD ROGERS

of kentucky

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House
Republican standards on congressionally-directed funding, I am
submitting the following information regarding funding included in H.R.
3170--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act,
2010
Requesting Member: Congressman Harold Rogers
Bill Number: H.R. 3170
Account: ONDCP
Legal Name of Recipient: National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws
Address of Recipient: 1414 Prince Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Description of Request: As also requested by the President, provides
$1,250,000 in directed funding to assist states with their efforts to
address diversion of, abuse of, misuse of, and addiction to
prescription drugs. The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws
(NAMSDL) is a non-profit organization that serves as a resource for
governors, state legislators, drug and alcohol professionals, community
leaders, and others striving for comprehensive and effective state drug
and alcohol laws, policies and programs. NAMSDL's national network of
drug and alcohol experts researches and analyzes model drug and alcohol
laws, and facilitates working relationships among state and community
leaders and drug and alcohol professionals. The proliferation of
addictive pain-relief prescription drugs in Kentucky and across the
country necessitates continued funding of NAMSDL programs.

____________________

PREVENTIVE MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE SCREENING

______

HON. PATRICK J. KENNEDY

of rhode island

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam Speaker, as we continue to craft a meaningful,
necessary reform of our health care system, we must continue to embrace
prevention, the provision of whole-body care, and the reversal of the
current ``sick-care'' system. With this in mind, I respectfully ask you
to ensure that screening for mental health and substance abuse is
included as one of the preventative services proposed by the America's
Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.
The pervasiveness of mental illness and substance abuse in our
society continues to be disconcerting. In 2007, over 20 million
individuals were diagnosed with substance dependence or abuse. However,
less than 10 percent received treatment for their disorders. By some
estimates, the societal health and economic costs of alcohol and drug
abuse are estimated at $366 billion per year. Conversely, screening has
an estimated net savings of $294 per person offered screening.
Extensive data documents that drug and alcohol addiction treatment is
as effective as treatment for other chronic medical conditions such as
cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. Substance addiction, like cancer,
diabetes, and heart disease, is a preventable and treatable chronic
disease. Likewise, mental illnesses are among the most expensive and
disabling chronic diseases. Severe mental illnesses are estimated to
cost the U.S. $193 billion in lost wages in 2002. The World Health
Organization has pronounced mental health disorders to be the leading
cause of disability in the U.S. based on burden of disease. Moreover,
mental illnesses often accompany and greatly increase the cost of
treating other chronic conditions. Tragically, individuals with serious
mental illness have a life expectancy of 25 years less than general
population.
Currently, mental health and substance abuse screening tools, such as
Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT or SBI),
are being used effectively in

[[Page 18564]]

many academic centers, hospitals, trauma centers and community health
settings across the country. A cost assessment conducted of SBIRT in
Washington State demonstrated a cost savings for the State of $2
million in Medicaid costs for just 1,000 patients. SBIRT is already
effectively being used by the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program, and the Center for Medicare Services has also allocated
approximately $300 million for states specifically for reimbursement of
SBIRT. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to
ensure that this life-saving preventative strategy is included in the
America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.

____________________

INTRODUCING AG TRUCK WEIGHTS LEGISLATION

______

HON. BETSY MARKEY

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Ms. MARKEY of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce,
on behalf of myself and my colleague Adrian Smith of Nebraska, the
House companion bill to S. 639--bill to help farmers and ranchers
transport their commodities more easily.
Being a member of both the Agriculture and the Transportation
Committees, I understand how critical it is that both sectors be able
to work together to facilitate the movement of commodities.
Representing a largely agricultural district, I know the struggles
farmers go through to transport their crops, especially in this time of
ever fluctuating gas prices. We need to be doing what we can to relieve
farmers of unnecessary transportation rules and regulations when they
follow safe and responsible procedures.
When a farmer drives goods of over 10,001 pounds across state lines,
they becomes subject to the rules and regulations of commercial motor
vehicles. Within their own State, the farmer is not violating any laws;
however, once they become an ``interstate carrier'' the farmer is then
responsible for all of the requirements of an operator of a commercial
motor vehicle. These requirements include having a commercial driver's
license, Department of Transportation certification on the vehicle,
being subject to drug and alcohol testing in addition to having a
medical examination certificate, and recording hours of service. For
those farmers who are occasionally transporting their goods across
state lines and are not driving trucks for a living, these requirements
are an unnecessary burden. These costly regulations are taking an
unfair toll on farmers and this legislation will correct that. This
legislation would exempt farmers from the 10,001 pound definition of a
Commercial Motor Vehicle when traveling between States and will reduce
undue burdens on farmers.

____________________

HONORING COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR NEIL RUSSELL FOR 38 YEARS OF SERVICE

______

HON. PHIL GINGREY

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow
Georgian, Command Sergeant Major (CSM) Neil Russell, on his retirement
after more than 38 years of service in the Georgia Army National Guard.
CSM Russell's dedication to duty and service throughout his career has
led to numerous accomplishments that he will undoubtedly carry with him
forever as he moves into the next phase of his life.
CSM Russell began his military career with the Georgia Army National
Guard when he graduated high school in 1971, and he has been humbly
serving our nation in this capacity ever since. His military education
includes the Fire Direction Computer Course, the Equal Opportunity and
Race Relations Course, the NCOES Advance and Senior Courses, the Battle
Skills Course, the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy Course, the U.S.
Army Command Sergeants Major Designee Course, and the Bradley Infantry
Crewman Course at numerous military installations across the country.
These experiences laid the course for an illustrious career for CSM
Russell. He also holds an Associates Degree in Science from Brunswick
Junior College and a Bachelor of Science from Excelsior College in
Albany, NY.
CSM Russell served in the 118th Field Artillery Brigade in Savannah,
GA as a Fire Direction Specialist and Operations NCO until August of
1981, when he was assigned to the Service Battery 2nd Battalion, 214th
Field Artillery as the Battalion Supply Sergeant. In May of 1985, he
was transferred back to the 118th Field Artillery Brigade. He remained
there until September of 1992 when he was transferred to the 1st
Battalion, 118th Field Artillery Battalion as the Battalion Operations
NCO, and in May of 1999 he was selected and transferred to the 122nd
Rear Operations Center (ROC) as the unit Operations Sergeant Major.
Finally, in May of 2005, CSM Russell was selected and reassigned as the
JFHQ Command Sergeant Major for the Georgia Army National Guard, and he
has honorably served in this capacity until his retirement.
CSM Russell trained at the National Training Center in Ft. Irwin, CA
with the 1st Battalion, 118th Field Artillery in 1996 and has
participated in numerous OCONUS exercises while serving in the 122nd
ROC. In November of 2000, he mobilized with the 122nd ROC in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom. The 122nd ROC became the basis around which
a task force was created to establish, coordinate, and manage the civil
affairs mission in Afghanistan. In January of 2002, CSM Russell
deployed with the task force to Kabul, Afghanistan, and he functioned
as the Task Force Command Sergeant Major until June of 2002, when he
re-deployed. This task force was awarded the Joint Meritorious Unit
Award for exceptional achievement for the period between November of
2001 and July of 2002.
Throughout his illustrious career, CSM Russell has been presented the
Georgia State Active Duty Ribbon, the Georgia Commendation Medal, the
National Defense Service Medal with Service Star, the Army Reserve
Component Achievement Medal, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Army
Service Ribbon, the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Army
Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon, the Humanitarian Service
Medal, the Joint Services Achievement Medal, the Army Achievement
Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Army Commendation
Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal, and the Bronze Star Medal. Each
one of these medals and ribbons signify the admirable service that CSM
Russell has graciously displayed in his career in the Georgia Army
National Guard.
CSM Russell has made a lasting contribution to the capability of
today's United States Army National Guard. His superior performance of
duties highlights the culmination of more than 37 years of honorable
and dedicated Army National Guard service. My home state of Georgia and
our nation are proud of CSM Russell's exemplary professional
competence, sound judgment, and total dedication to duty. He has
reflected great credit upon himself and has always upheld the highest
traditions of the Army National Guard. I wish Neil and his family all
the best in their future endeavors as he enters into a well-deserved
retirement after such a distinguished career of service.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I am having back surgery,
which will require me to miss votes the last two weeks of July. I will
be returning, stronger and better than ever, to do my work for the 4th
Congressional District of NY when Congress reconvenes in September.
Yesterday, I missed two votes. Had I been present I would have voted.
Rollcall No. 593, on Approving the Journal, I would have voted
``yea.''
Rollcall No. 594, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to H.
Res. 607, I would have voted ``yea.''
Rollcall No. 595, on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R.
2245, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

THE LIBERAL SLIDE

______

HON. CLIFF STEARNS

of florida

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, as the polls show disapproval for the
Democrat health care up to 44 percent and now more than 43 percent of
Americans now see the Obama Democrats as the old-style, tax and spend
liberals. The President is starting to take note.
He has delayed the White House release of its mid-year budget review.
The administration

[[Page 18565]]

officials have rescheduled its release to conceal record-breaking
deficits. At the same time, the Democrat leaders rush to take over
healthcare and they continue to push cap and tax legislation.
Both of these bills will push spending out of control.
The Democrats won't even listen to the CBO Director Elmendorf who
said their healthcare bill won't save money but will add to the
deficit.
Madam Speaker, the Democrats need to work in a bipartisan way to gain
control of our spending to create jobs for the American people.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. JERRY LEWIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Republican
earmark guidance, I am submitting the following in regards to the
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Project Name: University of California, Riverside School of Medicine
Account: HRSA Health Facilities and Services
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: University of California, Riverside
Address of Requesting Entity: 900 University Avenue Riverside, CA
Amount: $3.4 million
Description of Request: The funds will be used for renovation of an
anatomy lab and a biomedical sciences building that will become part of
the planned School of Medicine at the University of California,
Riverside. The new School of Medicine will address the severe physician
shortage in Inland Southern California, one of the most rapidly growing
regions in the country. With the regional physician shortfall is
forecast to be high as 53 percent by 2015, the Inland Empire faces a
health care challenge of crisis proportions. The regional focus of the
medical school's research and clinical enterprises will help mitigate
that crisis and will improve health care for the many low- and
moderate-income residents of Riverside and San Bernardino counties. The
results will be a model that can be applied in areas throughout the
nation.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Project Name: Salvation Army of San Bernardino Family Services
Program
Account: Administration for Children and Families--Social Services
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Salvation Army of San Bernardino
Address of Requesting Entity: 746 W. 5th Street San Bernardino, CA
Amount: $160,000
Description of Request: The funds will help the Salvation Army Family
Services program provide a full spectrum of community services designed
to assist families that struggle with difficult challenges. The funds
will also support emergency shelter services to families in crisis. The
program serves families throughout the Inland Empire, which has one of
the highest foreclosure and unemployment rates in the nation. The
economic situation is causing increased demand for these services, at
the same time that donations and State funding have declined creating a
dire situation for providing services.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Project Name: San Gorgonio Hospital Computed Radiography
Account: HRSA--Health Facilities and Services
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital
Address of Requesting Entity: 600 N Highland Springs Ave, Banning, CA
Amount: $340,000
Description of Request: The funds would help purchase a Computed
Radiography system to replace x-ray film and create a digital image.
San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital is a not-for-profit community hospital
that is serving a rapidly growing area of Riverside County. As
Riverside County struggles with high unemployment and foreclosure
rates, the hospital is providing more unreimbursed medical care, making
it difficult to meet payroll and impossible to purchase any new
equipment. Computed Radiography is the standard of care in diagnostic
imaging and has been show to greatly increase patient safety.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Project Name: Redlands Community Hospital PET/CT Scanner
Account: HRSA--Health Facilities and Services
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Redlands Community Hospital
Address of Requesting Entity: 350 Terracina Boulevard, Redlands, CA
Amount: $500,000
Description of Request: The requested funds would help support the
purchase of combination Positron Emission Tomography, PET, ``64 slice''
scanner/Computed Tomography, CT, machine. Currently RCH rents a PET
scanner 3 days a week to accommodate patient demand. Redlands Community
Hospital is one of a handful of remaining independent nonprofit
hospitals in Southern California, and provides annually over $8 million
in charity care to the community. The equipment will help insure access
to diagnostic services in the face of rapidly increasing levels of
demand.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Project Name: St. Bernardine Medical Center Endovascular Suite
Account: HRSA--Health Facilities and Services
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: St. Bernardine Medical Center
Address of Requesting Entity: 2101 North Waterman Ave San Bernardino,
CA
Amount: $500,000
Description of Request: The funds requested will help the hospital
renovate space and equip an Endovascular Surgical Suite, which is a
specialized surgical room capable of advanced imaging to view smaller,
obscure vessels, which leads to minimally invasive surgical procedures.
In 2008, the Medical Center performed over 800 vascular procedures and
is ranked as one of the top ten by volume in heart diagnostic and
interventional procedures within the state of California . St.
Bernardine serves one of the fastest growing areas in the state and
nation and is located in one of the most densely impoverished areas in
Southern California. Current health care capacity and equipment cannot
keep pace with the growing demand.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Account: FIE
Project Name: We Care San Jacinto
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: We Care San Jacinto
Address of Requesting Entity: 300 West First Street, San Jacinto, CA
92583
Amount: $100,000
Description of Request: Funds for this project will go toward
continuing a program that provides tutoring, homework assistance and
after-school classes for low income families at no cost. In the City of
San Jacinto, low-income elementary and high school students are faced
with gang-related and drug activity in the local community every day.
The We Care tutoring program has influenced those who might very well
be inclined to drop out of school or not seek secondary education, and
is an important education program for our community.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Account: IMLS
Project Name: Cabot's Pueblo Museum
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Desert Hot Springs
Address of Requesting Entity: 65950 Pierson Boulevard, Desert Hot
Springs, CA 92240
Amount: $100,000
Description of Request: Funds will be used for preserving artifacts
and modern museum collection care at the Cabot's Pueblo museum. Cabot's
Pueblo is a unique Hopi-inspired structure handmade by local resident
Cabot Yerxa over 24 years. It includes 35 rooms, 150 windows and 65
doors, all crafted from found materials. The museum houses Cabot's
collection of Native American pottery, early 20th century photographs
and artifacts from his Alaskan adventures. The museum grounds,
including a picnic area, are landscaped with native plants and home to
many rustic period items--early 1900's tools, machinery and household
goods. Project goals also include development of diverse learning
programs that provide a greater opportunity for appreciation of
regional and natural heritage.
Requesting Member: Congressman Jerry Lewis
Account: IMLS
Project Name: Yucaipa Library
Legal Name of Requesting Entity: City of Yucaipa
Address of Requesting Entity: 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa, CA
92399-9950
Amount: $100,000
Description of Request: In a time when residents are relying more on
the city's public services, growth in the library usage calls for

[[Page 18566]]

enhancement of materials and technology. Funds will be used to expand
library collections and upgrade technology.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, on Monday, July 20, 2009, I was unable
to return to Washington in time to vote because of flight delays at
O'Hare International Airport. If I was here, I would have voted ``no''
on rollcall No. 593, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 594, and ``yea'' on
rollcall No. 595.

____________________

HONORING DR. GRAY MULTER

______

HON. ERIC J.J. MASSA

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. MASSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a friend and
scientist, Dr. Gray Multer. Gray was a marine geologist who dedicated
his life to the study and preservation of marine ecosystems.
Born in Syracuse, New York, Gray earned his Bachelor's and Master's
degrees from Syracuse University. After receiving his Ph.D. from Ohio
State University, he was a Professor of Geology for 30 years, first at
the College of Wooster and then at Fairleigh Dickinson University as
the chair of its geology department.
During his life, Gray authored or co-authored over 70 scientific
publications, as well as several books. In 2008, he was awarded an
honorary membership from the International Society for Reef Studies for
his distinguished research and service to society.
Gray was known for his warm demeanor and strength of character,
always a teacher dedicated to instilling a love of learning in his
students. He also volunteered with Habitat for Humanity in his spare
time.
It is to Gray's life and work that I would like to dedicate my
sponsorship of the Ocean Conservation, Education and National Strategy
for the 21st Century Act, as well as the Tropical Forest and Coral
Conservation Act.
As Gray recognized, the protection and restoration of marine
ecosystems is tremendously important in order to halt their
irreversible loss. In his memory, I hope that my support for these
bills will benefit the ecology of our oceans and help preserve them for
future generations.

____________________

HONORING CEDAR HILL CITY COUNCILMAN GREG PATTON

______

HON. KENNY MARCHANT

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable
public servant and friend of Cedar Hill, Greg Patton. Mr. Patton served
on the Cedar Hill City Council from 2000 until 2009. Throughout his
nine years on the council, Mr. Patton exemplified the true meaning of
public service by always prioritizing the needs of others first. With
his retirement from the council, Mr. Patton will be sorely missed but I
am confident his presence will continue to shine in Cedar Hill.
In addition to his council duties, Mr. Patton served as a member and
chair of the Southwest Dallas County Transportation Committee, served
on the National League of Cities Steering Committee for Transportation
and Infrastructure Services, and served as an active participant in the
River of Trade Corridor Coalition.
Prior to his council tenure, Mr. Patton chaired the Joe Pool Lake
Planning Council which resulted in the last lake built in North Texas
and the creation of Lake Joe Pool State Park. During the same time, he
also served as commissioner and then as chairman of the Cedar Hill
Planning and Zoning Commission.
A familiar face in the Cedar Hill community, Mr. Patton is an active
member of the Cedar Hill Church of Christ and a member of the Cedar
Hill Lions Club. He is also a regular volunteer at the Cedar Hill Food
Pantry and served for twenty years on the Cedar Hill Volunteer Fire
Department from 1977 until 1997. Among his many other accomplishments,
Mr. Patton was the chair of the 1975 City Charter Committee for Cedar
Hill.
Mr. Patton's wife, Linda, and two children all deserve a special
thank you for allowing him to spend so much time dedicated to the
betterment of Cedar Hill. Mr. Patton also has one granddaughter and
three grandsons.
Distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Greg Patton's
tireless passion, proven commitment, and years of admirable service to
the growth and success of Cedar Hill. I am proud to join the Cedar Hill
community in saluting Greg for all of his hard work, and I wish him the
best in the next chapter of his life.

____________________

HONORING HEIDI REITZ OF SARTELL, MINNESOTA AS AN ANGEL OF ADOPTION

______

HON. MICHELE BACHMANN

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Heidi Reitz of
Sartell, Minnesota, one of this year's Angels of Adoption. As you know,
this prestigious award from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption
Institute honors people who have given so much of themselves to help
children and families find one another.
Even without this award, Heidi would deserve acknowledgment for her
extraordinary work bettering the lives of orphans in China as Director
of Programs for Love Without Boundaries. I am honored, as a foster
mother myself, to make known her hard work to this Congress. Because of
Heidi's volunteer efforts, more than 300 children are in loving homes.
The inspiration for her tireless dedication can be found in her own
home. Her husband has helped Love Without Boundaries with cleft palate
surgeries and two of her six beautiful children were adopted from
China. As a volunteer, Heidi has arranged trips for two cleft-lip
orphans and helped start a cleft healing home where children awaiting
surgery to correct this difficult condition can be properly cared for.
Heidi is working to make sure each of these special children are
adopted into homes ready and prepared to care for them.
Madam Speaker, Heidi Reitz has done such a service for all of mankind
through her tireless dedication to orphan children in China. As
families from every country wait to be united with their adopted
parents and children, Heidi is giving them every opportunity to
complete their family. The Love Without Boundaries website uses the
anonymous quote, ``To the world, you might be one person . . . but to
one person you might be the world.'' To the hundreds of children and
families, Heidi is ``the world'' and an Angel in Adoption Award is just
a small way we can show our appreciation for her efforts.

____________________

HONORING JUDY O'CONNOR

______

HON. DAVID WU

of oregon

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a woman who has
dedicated 27 years to serving the labor community in Oregon.
Judy O'Connor joined the Northwest Oregon Labor Council as an office
worker in 1982, and her skills and dedication to the union movement
quickly led to her promotion to office manager. She joined the Office
and Professional Employees International Union Local 11 and was an
energetic advocate for office secretaries as part of OPEIU's executive
committee.
Though she had no experience with the labor movement prior to joining
the Northwest Oregon Labor Council, Judy became a tireless activist for
union causes. She volunteered for political campaigns, coordinated the
council's Speakers in the Schools program, and appeared before the
Oregon legislature to testify for improved job safety. She also
graduated from Union Counselor course at Labor's Community Service
Agency and served as chair of the IBEW and United Worker's Federal
Credit Union.
In 1998, Judy was the first woman elected to the position of the
Northwest Oregon Labor Council's executive secretary-treasurer, heading
the largest central labor council in Oregon. During her tenure as
executive secretary-treasurer, she has led over 100 constituent unions
in promoting workers' rights through times of economic growth and
decline.
Judy will be retiring in September and plans to return to Montana,
where she was raised. Oregon will be losing an important voice for
workers, but I hope that Judy is able to have some well-earned
relaxation. I want to thank her for her service to the labor community
here in Oregon and wish her and her family all the best.

[[Page 18567]]

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. MICHAEL R. TURNER

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. TURNER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 594, had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010

______

HON. TED POE

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, as a former judge who has had the
misfortune of observing the life-shattering effects of crimes of sexual
violence on the victims as well as their friends and families, I rise
today to highlight the importance of the National Sexual Assault
Hotline programs in supporting the victims in their recovery from these
terrible crimes. An estimated 1 in 6 women will become a victim of
sexual assault or rape in her lifetime; and the FBI ranks rape as the
second most violent crime (second only to murder, which is classified
as the most violent crime).
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which conducts an
annual crime survey of the nation's households, we have made some
progress in the fight to end sexual and domestic violence over the last
two decades. But statistics also suggest that we still have much work
to do: at least 200,000 Americans are sexually assaulted each and every
year, and only about 40 percent of rape victims ever come forward and
report the attacks against them to the authorities, according to DOJ.
Research suggests that those who receive crisis intervention support
and counseling services are more likely to cooperate with law
enforcement in pressing charges against their attackers. That is why it
is so important that we continue to support programs, such as the
National Sexual Assault Hotline programs, which help ensure that rape
victims (as well as their friends and family members) can receive the
information and support services that are so vitally important in one's
full recovery from an assault. The National Sexual Assault Hotline,
accessible toll free around the clock at 800-656-HOPE, has helped more
than 1.2 million callers since the Rape, Abuse & Incest National
Network (RAINN) created the telephone hotline in 1994. RAINN continues
to operate this telephone hotline today, in partnership with close to
1,100 affiliated rape crisis centers located in every state and the
District of Columbia, as well as thousands of volunteers across the
nation.
In 2006, RAINN also launched the National Sexual Assault Online
Hotline, accessible at www.RAINN.org, which has helped close to 30,000
people since its inception. It is the first web-based hotline of its
kind for rape victims, offering information and support to those who
might be reluctant to pick up the telephone and dial for help. The
online hotline, which RAINN created and operates with the assistance of
staff at its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and volunteers located
around the nation, is designed to reach additional populations
(particularly teenagers, males, and even people living in rural,
sparsely populated areas) who might not otherwise seek out necessary
information and support.
Our colleagues in the Senate specifically recommended $300,000 for
RAINN to carry out the National Sexual Assault Hotline programs, which
are federally authorized under Section 628 of the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act, in fiscal year 2010. Appropriations leaders
in this chamber, however, omitted to include a specific amount of
funding for RAINN in the House version of the fiscal year 2010
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2847).
I will note, however, that the full House Appropriations Committee,
during its consideration of H.R. 2847, did approve report language that
is directed specifically at RAINN. This language, which is part of
House Report 111-149, calls on the U.S. Department of Justice to
continue supporting programs, including hotline programs, that
facilitate the delivery of confidential recovery services to rape
victims. The inclusion of this committee report language is
significant, as it signals Congress' intention that victims of sexual
violence should continue to be able to access the National Sexual
Assault Hotline programs and the other programs that Congress has
authorized RAINN to carry out, with the support of the Office of
Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the members of the Appropriations
Committee for accepting this report language, at the request of myself,
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, and other members of this chamber. I
also want to express my interest in continuing to work with the House
and Senate leadership on a final version of the Commerce, Justice
Appropriations Act that will ensure that RAINN receives the level of
federal support that is necessary to continue operation of the National
Sexual Assault Hotline programs in fiscal year 2010.

____________________

HONORING MARGARET SANGER

______

HON. NITA M. LOWEY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to submit an article
highlighting the life and work of Margaret Sanger authored by Dr. Ellen
Chesler, distinguished lecturer at Hunter College of the City
University of New York and Director of the Eleanor Roosevelt Initiative
on Women and Public Policy.
Margaret Sanger, who lived from 1879 to 1966, was a nurse, educator,
birth control pioneer, women's health activist, and founder of the
American Birth Control League which eventually became Planned
Parenthood.
Her commitment to improving the health and lives of women was a
testament to her belief that all women are entitled to basic health
care and the ability to plan their pregnancies, and ultimately control
their own destiny.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize Margaret Sanger for her
tireless efforts on behalf of women and for fighting for those unable
to fight for themselves.

Margaret Sanger--Setting the Record Straight

(By Ellen Chesler)

Birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger went to jail in 1917
for distributing simple contraceptives to immigrant women
from a makeshift clinic in a tenement storefront in the
Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York. When she died
nearly fifty years later, the cause for which she defiantly
broke the law had achieved international stature, and she was
widely eulogized as one of the great emancipators of her
time.
A visionary thinker, relentless agitator, and gifted
organizer, Sanger lived just long enough to savour the
historic 1965 US Supreme Court decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut, which established privacy protections as a
framework for legalizing basic reproductive rights. Elderly
and frail, she watched Lyndon Johnson finally incorporate
family planning into US public welfare and foreign policy
programs. She saw the birth control pill developed and
marketed by a team of doctors and scientists she had long
encouraged and found the money to support. She saw a global
family planning movement descend from her own international
efforts.
The years since have not been as good to Sanger's
reputation, even as they have witnessed measurable progress
for women in achieving reproductive freedom. Today, outside
of a small minority of countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in
parts of the Muslim world that are now high-profile
exceptions to the global norm, a typical woman bears no more
than two children over the course of several years and spends
another 30 to 40 years avoiding pregnancy. More than 60
million women around the world use oral contraception daily,
a dramatic increase since organized interventions began. The
right of women to plan their families remains at least for
the time being enshrined in the US constitution and in
international human rights law, where it is widely recognized
as a necessary condition to improve women's status, and in
turn to sustain democratic institutions, promote social and
economic progress, and help sustain fragile environments.
Still, universal standards for women's human rights offer
no sure cure for violations that persist with uncanny
fortitude and often unimaginable cruelty in so many places
around the world. Harsh fundamentalisms are resurgent in many
countries, where women's bodies remain an arena of intense
political conflict, as a perhaps predictable response to the
social dislocations resulting from changing gender roles and
to the larger assaults on traditional cultures from the many
real and perceived injustices of modernization and
globalization. Even back at home in the United States,
decades of substantial progress by women have fuelled a
fierce backlash.
Wih an intensity that few would have predicted in 1992 when
Bill Clinton was elected as America's first pro-choice
president, a powerful conservative minority has eroded
abortion rights along with funding for family planning at
home and abroad, while dollars have surged instead for
abstinence programs known to be ineffective and often
harmful. We have tolerated the impunity of daily

[[Page 18568]]

campaigns of intimidation and outright violence against
courageous providers of contraception and abortion,
culminating most recently in the tragic assassination of Dr.
George Tiller of Kansas. Planned Parenthood affiliates have
been repeatedly targeted, and Sanger herself has become a
collateral victim of this frenzy, her reputation savaged by
opponents who deliberately misrepresent the history of birth
control and circulate scurrilous, false accusations about her
on the Internet.
A particularly harsh example of this campaign of distortion
and outright misrepresentation came in response to recent
Congressional testimony by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton was chastised for her
unwavering support of comprehensive sexual and reproductive
health rights and services for women and for having accepted
with pride the highest honour of the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, its Margaret Sanger Award, a prize
bestowed in the past on some of this country's most
distinguished supporters of reproductive justice, beginning
with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
This statement is offered in response to false accusations
about Margaret Sanger made on that occasion. It investigates
Sanger's core beliefs and major contributions and reexamines,
in the face of so much continued controversy, her
unquestioning confidence in the power of medicine and science
to shape human conduct and alleviate suffering, a confidence
that fuelled her interest in trying to make birth control
serve as a tool of both individual liberation and social
betterment.

Sanger's contribution and legacy

Margaret Sanger's fundamental contribution was in claiming
every woman's right to experience her sexuality freely and
bear only the number of children she desires. Following in
the footsteps of a first generation of educated women who had
proudly forgone marriage in order to seek fulfilment outside
the home, she offered birth control as a necessary condition
to the resolution of a broader range of personal and
professional satisfactions. The hardest challenge in
introducing her to modern audiences, for whom this claim has
become routine, is to explain how absolutely destabilizing it
seemed in her own time.
Even with so much lingering animus toward changes in
women's lives around the world, it is difficult to inhabit an
era in our own history when sexuality was considered more an
obligation of women than an experience from which to derive
contentment, let along pleasure. It is hard to remember that
well into Sanger's own time motherhood was accepted as a
woman's principal purpose and primary role. It is even harder
to fathom that American women just a century ago, were still
largely denied identities or rights of their own, independent
of those they enjoyed by virtue of their relationships with
men, and that this principle was central to the enduring
opposition they encountered in seeking access to full rights
of inheritance and property, to suffrage, and most especially
to birth control. This unyielding principle of male
``coverture'' defined women's legal identities even with
respect to physical abuse in the family, which the U.S.
Supreme Court condoned in 1910, denying damages to a wife
injured by violent beatings on the grounds that to do so
would undermine the peace of the household.
Re-examining this history in the context of the recent
expansion of civil and human rights to incorporate women's
rights underscored Sanger's originality as a feminist
theorist who first demanded civil protection of women's
claims to reproductive liberty and bodily integrity, in and
outside of marriage. As a result of private arrangements and
a healthy trade in condoms, douches, and various contraptions
sold largely under the subterfuge of feminine hygiene, the
country's birth rate began to decline long before she came on
the scene. But it was she who invented ``birth control'' as a
comfortable, popular term of speech, and in so doing gave the
practice essential public and political currency. It was she
who first recognised the far-reaching consequences of
bringing sexuality and contraception out in the open and
claiming them as fundamental women's rights. She won legal
protection for birth control, and by winning scientific
validation for specific contraceptive practices, she also
helped lift the religious shroud that had long encased
reproduction in myth and mystery, thereby securing medical
and social science institutions--as much as houses of
worship--as arbiters of sexual behaviours and values. And
from this accomplishment, which many still consider
heretical, a continuing controversy has ensued.
When Sanger opened her clinic and deliberately staged an
arrest in 1916, she challenged anachronistic obscenity laws
that remained on the books as the legacy of the notorious
anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, whose evangelical
fervour had captured late 19th century Victorian politics and
led to the adoption by the states and federal government of
broad criminal sanctions on sexual speech and commerce,
including all materials related to contraception and
abortion. Her critique, however, was not just of legal
constraints on obscenity, but also of legal constraints on
women's place. In this respect, she also helped inaugurate a
modern women's rights movement that moves beyond traditional
civil and political claims of liberty to embrace social and
cultural ones. She understood that to advance women's rights
it is necessary to address--and the state has an obligation
to protect--personal as well as public spheres of conduct. It
must establish broad safeguards for women and intervene to
eliminate everyday forms of discrimination and abuse.

from the past to the present

Observing the contorted politics of sexuality in recent
years only reinforces one's sympathy for Margaret Sanger's
predicament as a wildly polarizing figure in her own day and
clarifies the logic of her decision after World War I to
mainstream her movement by identifying reproductive freedom,
not just as a woman's right, but also as a necessary
foundation for broader improvements in public health and
social welfare. Her decision to adopt the socially resonant
content of ``family planning'' over birth control, when the
Great Depression encouraged attention to collective needs
over individual ones and when the New Deal created a
blueprint for bold public endeavours, was particularly
inventive, and in no way cynical. Nor as some of her harshest
critics have since have charged, did she ever define family
planning as right of the privileged, but as a duty or
obligation of the poor, any more than we do so today when we
call for increased public expenditure on it as a matter of
simple justice.
To the contrary, Sanger showed considerable foresight in
lobbying for voluntary family planning programs to be
included among the benefits of any sound public investment in
social security. Had the New Deal included public health and
access to contraception in its social welfare package, as
most European countries were then doing, protracted conflicts
over welfare and healthcare policy in the years since in the
United States might well have been avoided. Where she went
wrong was only in failing to anticipate the force of the
opposition her proposal would generate from a coalition of
religious conservatives of her own day, including urban
Catholics and rural fundamentalist Protestants to whom
Roosevelt Democrats became captive, much as Republicans have
become in recent years.
What is a good deal harder to deconstruct and understand is
Sanger's engagement with eugenics during these years, the
then still widely respectable and popular intellectual
movement that addressed the manner in which biology and
heredity affect human intelligence and ability. Like many
well-intentioned secularists and social reformers of her day,
Sanger took away from Charles Darwin the essentially
optimistic lesson that men and women's common descent in the
animal kingdom makes us all capable of improvement, if only
we apply the right tools. Eugenics, in the view of most
prominent progressive thinkers of this era, from university
presidents, to physicians and scientists, to public
officials, held the promise that merit would replace
birthright and social status as the standard for mobility in
a democratic society.
In this respect, the most enduring bequest of eugenics is
standard IQ testing. Its most damning and unfathomable legacy
is a series of state laws upheld by a 9 to 1 progressive
majority of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1929, including
Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who in the
landmark decision of Buck v. Bell authorised the compulsory
sterilisation of a poor young white woman with an
illegitimate child, on grounds of feeble-mindedness that were
never clearly established. This decision, incidentally, was
also endorsed by civil libertarians such as Roger Baldwin and
civil rights advocates, including W.E.B. Dubois of the NAACP,
both of whom Sanger counted among her supporters and friends.
For Sanger eugenics was meant to begin with the voluntary
use of birth control, but many conservative eugenicists of
the day actually opposed the practice on the grounds that the
fit should procreate. Sanger countered by disdaining what she
called a `cradle competition' of class, race or ethnicity.
She publicly opposed immigration restrictions which grew out
of conservative interpretations of a eugenics that reinforced
racial and ethnic stereotypes she opposed. She framed poverty
as a matter of differential access to resources, including
birth control, not as the immutable consequence of low
inherent ability or poor character, a view some conservative
eugenicists embraced. She argued for broad government safety
nets for social welfare and public health, including access
to safe and reliable contraception. And she proudly
marshalled clinical data to demonstrate that most women, even
among the poorest and least educated populations, embraced
and eagerly used birth control voluntarily, when it was
provided them.
At the same time, however, Sanger did on occasion engage in
shrill rhetoric about the growing burden of large families
among individuals of low intelligence and defective heredity.
Her language had no intended racial, ethnic, or class
content. She argued that all women, no matter where they are
situated, should be encouraged to bear fewer, healthier
children, but her words have since been lifted out of context
and tragically misquoted to provoke exactly the kind of
intolerance she opposed. Moreover, in endorsing

[[Page 18569]]

the Supreme Court's decision about compulsory sterilization,
and also on several occasions the payment of pensions or
bonuses to women of low intelligence who would with this
inducement agree to the procedure, Sanger quite clearly
failed to consider the fundamental rights questions raised by
such practices or the validity of the aptitude assessments on
which determinations of low intelligence were based. Living
in an era indifferent to the firm obligation to respect and
protect the rights of individuals whose behaviours do not
always conform to prevailing mores, she did not always
fulfill it.
The challenge for historians has been to reconcile these
apparent contradictions in her views. Sanger was actually an
unusually advanced thinker on race for her day, one who
condemned discrimination and encouraged reconciliation
between blacks and whites. She opened an integrated clinic in
Harlem in the early 1930s and then facilitated birth control
and maternal health programs for rural black women in the
south, when local white health officials denied them access
to the New Deal's first federally funded services . . . She
worked on this project with the behind the scenes support of
Eleanor Roosevelt, whose progressive views on race were well
known but whose support for birth control was silenced by her
husband's Catholic political handlers, at least until he was
safely ensconced in the White House for a third term.
Historically specific circumstances of this complexity,
however, are hard to untangle and convey, and this in large
part explains why Sanger's legacy has been so easily
distorted by contemporary abortion opponents who believe they
can advance their own ideological and political agendas by
undermining her motives and her character.
America's intensely complicated politics of reproduction
has long ensnarled Margaret Sanger and all others who have
tried to discipline it. Birth control has fundamentally
altered private and public life over the past century. No
other issue has for so long captivated our attention or
polarized our thinking. As the psychologist Erik Erikson once
provocatively suggested, no idea of modern times, save
perhaps for arms control, more directly challenges human
destiny, which alone may account for the profound social
conflict it tends to inspire.
As many scholars of the subject in recent years have also
observed, much of the controversy around birth control
proceeds as well from the plain fact that reproduction is by
its very nature experienced individually and socially at the
same time. In claiming women's fundamental right to control
their own bodies, Sanger always remained mindful of the dense
fabric of cultural, political, and economic relationships in
which those rights are exercised. And almost, if obviously
not always, the policies she advocated were intended to
facilitate the necessary obligation of public policy to
balance individual rights of self-expression with the
sometimes contrary social and political obligation to
promulgate and enforce common mores, rule, and laws.
That Margaret Sanger failed to get this balance quite right
in one important respect is certainly worthy of respectful
disagreement and commentary, but it is no reason to poison
her reputation or to abandon the noble cause of reproductive
freedom to which she so courageously and indefatigably
dedicated her life.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. DAVID G. REICHERT

of washington

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information
regarding earmarks I received as part of the Fiscal Year 2010
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
(1) $750,000 for the M Street SE Grade Separation Project Requesting
Entity: City of Auburn, 25 West Main Street, Auburn, WA 98001
Agency: Federal Highway Administration
Account: Surface Transportation Priorities
Funding Requested by: Rep. Dave Reichert
Project Summary: This request will allow the City to complete right
of way acquisition. Once completed, the grade separation will provide
indirect economic benefits to the regional Ports of Seattle and Tacoma,
and the BNSF railroad; it will also allow continued growth and
increased economic impact, which will proportionally increase the
number of jobs in the region.

finance plan:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracking Anticipated Secured
Funding Source (million) (million) (million)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Auburn.................................................. .............. .............. 2.2
FY08 Appropriations............................................. .............. .............. 0.12
City of Auburn--PWTF............................................ $2.00 .............. ..............
2010 Appropriations............................................. 4.60 .............. ..............
FMSIB--State Funds.............................................. .............. .............. 6.00
City of Auburn.................................................. .............. $1.20 ..............
BNSF............................................................ .............. 1.10 ..............
Ports........................................................... .............. 1.50 ..............
TIB............................................................. 2.00 .............. ..............
Federal STP Grant............................................... 1.70 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10.3 3.8 8.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funding Need per Phase:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
Phase Dates cost
(million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design and Environmental........... 10/8 to 1/10.......... $2.4
Right-of-Way Acquisition........... 2/10 to 2/11.......... 4.6
Construction....................... 5/11 to 10/12......... 15.4
------------------------------------
Total.......................... ...................... 22.4
million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) $360,000 for the SE King County Commuter Rail and Transit Centers
Feasibility Study
Requesting Entity: City of Covington, 16720 SE 271st St., Suite 100,
Covington, WA 98042, and
City of Maple Valley, 22035 SE Wax Road, Maple Valley, WA 98038
Agency: Federal Transit Administration
Account: Alternatives Analysis
Funding Requested by: Rep. Dave Reichert
Project Summary: This project is a feasibility study for bringing
commuter rail to one of the fastest growing areas in Southeast King
County, Washington. A five-city coalition has formed to study the
feasibility of utilizing existing infrastructure to handle the expected
traffic growth, and to explore whether small commuter trains could run
between Maple Valley-Covington-Auburn on the Burlington Northern
Stampede Pass Line. Arriving in Auburn, commuters could connect with
the Sounder trains and Metro bus service into Kent, Seattle, and
Bellevue. The feasibility study will examine the capital and operating
costs of such a service, design a business model, and examine ridership
demand.

FINANCIAL PLAN

The funding source is the FY10 Appropriations request, as this public
entity can only fund the feasibility study at this time with federal
support. Depending upon the amount of funding received, the cities
involved will seek submittals of qualifications from consultants
experienced in multi-modal (particularly rail), inter-city
transportation alternatives.
(3) $150,000 for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Bellevue, Bellevue
Community Center renovations
Requesting Entity: Boys and Girls Clubs of Bellevue, 209 100th Avenue
NE, Bellevue, WA 98004
Agency: Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Account: Economic Development Initiatives (EDI)
Funding Requested by: Rep. Dave Reichert
Project Summary:
This project will enable the Bellevue Boys and Girls Club to serve
more children in three targeted low-income communities in Bellevue.
Adding to the size, utility, and safety of these sites will not only
increase the educational and recreational opportunities of youth living
in these communities, but will also allow adults access to basic
education, employment training and language skills that lead to
increased self-sufficiency, self-esteem and economic wellbeing.
Existing community facilities have been used extensively, are outdated,
and simply too small to accommodate the growing number of youth that
want to use the facilities at each site.

BELLEVUE COMMUNITY CENTER UPGRADE PROJECT FINANCE PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hidden Village Cost Estimate ........... ......
Building Renovation............................ $171,000 ......
Site work...................................... 17,100 ......
Demo for Addition.............................. 7,500 ......
Subtotal................................... 195,600 ......
Permits........................................ 3,912 ......
Contractor G.C................................. 29,340 ......
Total...................................... 228,852 ......
Eastside Terrace Cost Estimate ........... ......
Building Renovation............................ 192,500 ......
Site work...................................... 19,250 ......
Demo for Addition.............................. 7,500 ......
Subtotal................................... 219,250 ......
Permits........................................ 4,385 ......
Contractor G.C................................. 32,888 ......
Total...................................... 256,523 ......
Spirit Wood Manor Cost Estimate ........... ......
Building Renovation............................ 284,000 ......
Site work...................................... 28,400 ......
Demo for Addition.............................. 7,500 ......
Subtotal................................... 319,900 ......
Permits........................................ 6,398 ......
Contractor G.C................................. 47,985 ......
Total...................................... 374,283 ......
Total Community Center Upgrade Project Cost........ 859,658 ......
Requested EDI...................................... 750,000 87%
King County Housing Authority Matching Funds....... 109,658 13%
--------------------
Total...................................... 859,658 ......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18570]]

(4) $250,000 for the City of Snoqualmie Historic Downtown Main Street
infrastructure improvements
Requesting Entity: City of Snoqualmie, P.O. Box 987, Snoqualmie, WA
98065
Agency: Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Account: Economic Development Initiatives (EDI)
Funding Requested by: Rep. Dave Reichert
Project Summary: This project is for improvements to SR 202/Railroad
Avenue, three adjacent streets and four intersections within a two-
block area of Snoqualmie's historic downtown business district. The
project will: improve pedestrian safety and comfort by providing
complete, wider sidewalks with curb bulbs and marked crosswalks at
intersections; calm traffic by narrowing travel lanes; improve on-
street parking for business livelihood; repair and upgrade utilities to
support infill and expansion; improve access to transit.

FINANCE PLAN

A. Project Funding and Budget.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation Local funds Total project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Engineering..................................... $385,000 $475,000 $860,000
Right of Way........................................... 100,000 120,000 220,000
Construction Management................................ 190,000 445,000 635,000
Construction........................................... 2,325,000 2,660,000 4,985,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 3,000,000 3,700,000 6,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Local Funding Sources

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Public/private Amount.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Snoqualmie.............. Public............. $1,800,000
Washington State Department of Public............. 200,000
Transportation.
Developer Mitigation Funds...... Private............ 300,000
Federal Economic Development Public............. 1,400,000
Administration.
---------------------------------------
Total....................... ................... 3,700,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(5) $9,368,193 for the Bellevue-Redmond Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Requesting Entity: King County, King County Courthouse, 516 Third
Ave., Rm. 1200, Seattle, WA 98104
Agency: Federal Transit Administration
Account: Capital Investment Grants
Funding Requested by: Rep. Dave Reichert
This project will construct and operate a 9.25-mile long street-
running Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line connecting downtown Bellevue,
Crossroads Mall, the Overlake urban center, and downtown Redmond. The
corridor already features substantial existing transit investment
including three regional transit transfer centers. The Bellevue-Redmond
BRT project is intended to complement these facilities. The scope of
work includes 12 new stations, real-time bus arrival information,
signal prioritization, and 18 low-floor hybrid vehicles. The Bellevue
to Redmond RapidRide Bus Rapid Transit corridor will provide frequent
all day service and faster travel times.

Finance plan

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase Federal Local Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRT Corridor.................................................... $2,400,000 $2,584,369 $4,984,369
Rapid Ride Passenger Facilities................................. 2,000,000 689,024 2,689,074
Real Time Information System.................................... 500,000 107,500 607,500
Bus Acquisition................................................. 15,300,000 4,230,676 19,530,676
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 20,200,000 7,611,569 27,811,569
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This office conducted site visits to meet with representatives from
all five of the projects listed above.

____________________

THE BLAME GAME CONTINUES WITH REGARD TO CYPRUS

______

HON. DAN BURTON

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, Monday July 20, 2009 marked the
35th anniversary of the day in 1974 that Turkey intervened to stop an
ethnic cleansing campaign against Turkish Cypriots by militant Greek
Cypriots. And as usual, a number of my colleagues have come to the
floor of this Chamber over the last few days and weeks to lament the
so-called ``invasion'' of Cyprus by Turkey. For many years I have taken
to the Floor to no avail to respectfully ask my colleagues to lay aside
the inflammatory rhetoric and stop throwing barbs at the Turkish
Cypriots and Turkey in an attempt to lay all the blame for this
complicated issue at their doorstep. This year my call takes on an even
more urgent ring. All of us in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats,
want to see peace and prosperity come to all the people of Cyprus. We
may be closer to peace on Cyprus today then at any time since 2004 when
the U.N. plan for a settlement (the Annan Plan) won the support of
Turkish Cypriots--by a clear majority of 65%--but failed to win the
support of Greek Cypriots--who led by their leadership rejected it by
even a larger majority of 76%. By continuing to distort the facts
though we are potentially undermining our good faith efforts to see
this conflict resolved.
Since the rejection of the Annan Plan, the Greek Cypriot side has
been trying to argue that the plan ``did not meet the interests of the
country'' and that ``it did not provide for guarantees to ensure the
complete implementation of commitments under the plan''. However, the
fact is that impartial European Union diplomats, closely associated
with the reconciliation effort, have said publicly and very
undiplomatically, that the Greek Cypriot people had been ``lied to'' by
the Greek Cypriot government as to the details of the Annan plan.
As public servants I think the members of this House understand that
no compromise worth its salt ever fully meets all of the demands of
either side, nor could it do so or it wouldn't be much of a compromise.
The fact is that the Annan Plan was a carefully balanced compromise
that certainly from the Turkish Cypriot perspective represented immense
sacrifices on the part of the Turkish Cypriots, on such key issues as
land, resettlement, property and security. The Greek government and
several former Greek government leaders fully supported the plan and
the Turkish government was also pivotal in encouraging the Turkish
Cypriots to approve the plan. In the end, the only people who were not
willing to make the sacrifices necessary to bring peace to this
troubled island were the Greek Cypriots. This is a critically important
point to reiterate Madam Speaker; when offered the chance to vote for
peace which side rejected peace, Turkish or Greek? The answer is Greek.
To their credit, Turkish Cypriots continue to seek a settlement to
the issue. This is testament to their hope for the future; and the
latest round of direct negotiations between Turkish Cypriots and Greek
Cypriots began in September 2008. These talks following a joint
statement issued on May 23, 2008 where the two leaders reaffirmed their
commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political
equality, as defined by relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions. The statement adds ``This partnership will have a Federal
Government with a single international personality, as well as a
Turkish Cypriot Constituent State and a Greek Cypriot Constituent
State, which will be of equal status.'' As recently as June 2009
Turkish Cypriot President Talat declared his support to ``find a
comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem as soon as possible and
make Cyprus a full-fledged member of the European Union as a unified
Cyprus. That is our main target and the ongoing negotiations I hope
will lead to an ultimate solution.''
Are negotiations proceeding as rapidly and as smoothly as everyone
would like; no, but progress is being made. And it is important to
remember that the Cyprus conflict is more complex and convoluted then
portrayed by many of my colleagues. This conflict did not start in 1974
as many people want to believe. Instead, the origins of the conflict
can be traced back to the Greek Cypriot drive for Union with Greece
(Enosis), a movement with roots in the waning days of the Ottoman
Empire. Even the more modern history of the conflict, stems from the
1950s and 1960s rather then 1974.
The fact is that when the Island of Cyprus gained its independence
from Great Britain in 1960, the Republic's constitution specifically
defined a power-sharing arrangement which required a Greek Cypriot
president and a Turkish Cypriot vice-president, each elected by their
constituency.
The fact is that in 1963 Greek Cypriot President Makarios proposed
sweeping constitutional modifications which heavily favored the Greek
Cypriot community. The changes removed most of the checks and balances
which had been built into the constitution to ensure the safety and
equal status of the Turkish Cypriots. The inevitable result was a
serious deterioration of relations between the

[[Page 18571]]

two parties which came to a head in December 1963 when armed Greek
Cypriots attacked and killed many Turkish Cypriots who were unable to
escape. The armed conflict quickly spread with the Turkish Cypriots
eventually being forced to withdraw into enclaves to defend themselves.
For the next ten years, the campaign of the Greek Cypriots cost the
Turkish Cypriots many lives and untold suffering, as well as their
equal partnership status in the Cyprus government.
Former United States Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who, among
others, was actively dealing with the crisis at the time, remarked in
his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, that Makarios has
turned: ``This beautiful little island into his private abattoir'' (P.
341). Ball went on to say that: ``Makarios'' central interest was to
block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could
go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots'' (p. 345).
The fact is that in 1974, Archbishop of Cyprus Makarios--the Greek
Cypriot leader at the time--escalated the crisis by embracing Enosis,
or Union with Greece, as his election platform. Although Makarios won
reelection he also created a power struggle between the military junta
in control of mainland Greece and himself for the control over the
Island. That power struggle culminated in a coup which forced Makarios
to flee Cyprus and renewed ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots.
In his address to the UN Security Council on July 19, 1974, Makarios
himself described the coup as ``a clear attack from the outside and a
flagrant violation of the independence and sovereignty of the Republic
of Cyprus''.
The fact is that in the face of a bloody coup that not only
threatened the independence of Cyprus but also resulted in renewed
massacres of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, which was treaty-bound to act as
a Guarantor State, was compelled to undertake action on July 20, 1974.
And the fact is that as a result of this legitimate and timely action,
Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction, bloodshed among
the Greek Cypriots was ended and the independence of Cyprus was
protected.
The fact is that the Turkish intervention was legitimate and was
internationally confirmed by, among others, the Consultative Assembly
of the Council of Europe (CACE). CACE resolution 573, dated July 29,
1974, clearly states, ``Turkey exercised its right of intervention in
accordance with Article IV of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960.''
The fact is that Greek Cypriots, having already forestalled UN
efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue--and been inexplicably rewarded for
it through EU membership--may not truly feel under pressure to seek a
just solution as the status quo benefits Greek Cypriots significantly
more than Turkish Cypriots.
Madam Speaker, facts are stubborn things; and as the facts in this
case clearly show, the crisis on Cyprus is significantly more complex
than the ``blame Turkey'' special interest groups would like people to
believe. The facts also show it seems to me that if either side has an
incentive to drag its feet at the negotiations; and I'm not suggesting
necessarily that either side does, but if one side did, it would be the
Greek Cypriots.
It's time for the ``blame Turkey'' groups here in the United States
to end the `blame game' and redirect their misspent energies towards
the real work of reshaping Cyprus into a Cyprus that respects human
rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots. And it's time for
the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to demonstrate political
will and negotiate in good faith for the future of all Cypriots.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. KEVIN BRADY

of texas

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for
several votes on Monday, July 20, 2009 due to obligations I needed to
attend to in Texas. Nevertheless, I would request that the record
indicate that I would have voted ``yes'' on both H. Res. 607,
``Celebrating the Fortieth Anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon Landing,''
of which I am a cosponsor, as well H.R. 2245, the ``New Frontier
Congressional Gold Medal Act.'' Each of these bills honors the historic
achievement of man's first steps on the Moon, which today still stands
as a testament to American ingenuity and an inspiration to millions.
Countless young Americans have grown up looking to the stars wanting to
be the next Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin or Michael Collins. Though most
will never set foot on the Moon, many followed their dreams and pursued
careers in science and engineering, careers that have resulted in
breathtaking technological advances that have improved the life of each
and every American. As we look back on this great achievement, it is my
hope that a new generation of Americans will again be inspired by the
wonders of space travel and will lead our country into a new era of
scientific discovery and space exploration.

____________________

IN HONOR AND REMEMBRANCE OF MARJORIE HELEN KNOLL PALLOTTA

______

HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and remembrance of
Marjorie Helen Knoll Pallotta, whose unwavering devotion to family,
friends, community and country has left an indelible imprint upon our
society and has forever touched the hearts of all who knew and loved
her well.
Mrs. Pallotta was born in Cleveland, Ohio on April 22, 1923 to George
W. Knoll, Jr. and Marie C. Dolan Knoll. She graduated from Notre Dame
Academy in 1941 and went on to study at the Cleveland Institute of
Music, where she met Rico Pallotta. They were married on April 3, 1948
at St. Clair Catholic Church and moved into a duplex in Cleveland
Heights. Together, they lovingly raised five children, Ward, Richard,
Ann, Joy and Tom, in a home that radiated love, unity and music. They
bought their first house in 1955 in Beachwood village and several years
later, the family moved to Bainbridge.
Although extremely busy raising five children, Mrs. Pallotta always
found time to volunteer in the community. She was known for many
beautiful talents, including her singing, prize winning rug hooking,
Scottish Country dancing and Irish red hair. She lent her musical
talents, especially her beautiful voice, as a singer in churches and at
community events. She regularly sang at weddings, at Suburban Temple,
and joined the choir of Grace Lutheran Church in Cleveland Heights for
the production of a record album. Mr. and Mrs. Pallotta also sang
together in the Cleveland Orchestra Chorus. At family reunions, Mrs.
Pallotta thrilled family and friends with her incredible mezzo soprano
voice, singing religious, classical and operatic selections along with
Broadway show tunes, most often accompanied by Rico on accordion or
piano. After singing the National Anthem at a July 4th reunion in New
York, her cousin, Larry Dolan, owner of the Cleveland Indians, asked if
she would sing at Jacobs Field. She accepted, and with power and
perfection, on June 7, 2002 at the age of 79, Mrs. Pallotta sang a
powerful and moving rendition of the National Anthem, as tens of
thousands of baseball fans listened with pride.
Madam Speaker and Colleagues, please join me in honor and recognition
of Marjorie Helen Knoll Pallotta, whose joyous and spirited life
reflects unwavering dedication to family, friends and community--framed
in love, music and song. I offer my heartfelt condolences to her
children, Ward, Richard, Ann, Joy and Tom; to her grandchildren, and to
her extended family members and many friends. Mrs. Pallotta's beautiful
life brought joy to her family, friends and people in the community,
and her love of life, and love she showed to others, will forever be
remembered.

____________________

EARMARK DECLARATION

______

HON. DAVID G. REICHERT

of washington

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership
standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information
regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 3183, the Fiscal Year
2010 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act.
(1) $2,600,000 for the King County, WA for Duwamish and Green River
Basin
Requesting Entity: King County, 516 Third Ave, Rm 1200, Seattle, WA
98104
Agency: Corps of Engineers
Account: Construction
Funding requested by: Reps. Dave Reichert, Norm Dicks, Jim McDermott,
Adam Smith
This project supports the restoration of the Duwamish Green watershed
by implementing a range of habitat restoration projects for the
recovery of ESA listed Chinook in a high priority watershed. The
projects are coordinated to the extent possible with flood protection

[[Page 18572]]

along the lower parts of the river where regional industrial and
manufacturing centers are located. The watershed is the second most
populous watershed in Puget Sound and encompasses 15 cities, including
part of the city of Seattle, the water supply for the City of Tacoma,
forest and agricultural production districts, as well as multiple
natural resources and public parks and open space.
Finance Plan:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project name Phase Federal share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mill Creek........................ Design.............. $250,000
Riverview Park.................... Construction........ 3,000,000
Upper Springbrook Creek........... Construction........ 1,000,000
Levee Bank Maintenance............ Construction........ 2,250,000
-------------------------------------
Total......................... .................... 6,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) $400,000 for Mud Mountain Dam.
Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CECS-C), Government
Accountability Office Building, 441 G Street, NW, Attn: CECS-C,
Washington, DC 20314
Agency: Corps of Engineers
Account: Construction
Funding requested by: Reps. Dave Reichert, Jim McDermott, Norm Dicks,
Adam Smith
A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control dam on the White River,
controlling floods in the lower White and Puyallup River valleys. The
new dam will replace the 100-year old structure and enable the Corps to
meet ongoing fish passage needs for Mud Mountain dam. Replacement of
the current structure is necessary to ensure the Corps of Engineers'
ability to meet existing and future fish passage responsibilities for
its Mud Mountain Dam on the White River.
Finance Plan:
Since this is an Administration request, specifics on the funds and
how they will be used will be available from the USACE Seattle District
office, once they have arrived at a funding level for FY 2010.
(3) $3,056,000 for Mud Mountain Dam.
Requesting Entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CECS-C), Government
Accountability Office Building, 441 G Street, NW, Attn: CECS-C,
Washington, DC 20314
Agency: Corps of Engineers
Account: Operations and Maintenance
Funding requested by: Reps. Dave Reichert, Adam Smith
A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control dam on the White River,
controlling floods in the lower White and Puyallup River valleys. The
new dam will replace the 100-year old structure and enable the Corps to
meet ongoing fish passage needs for Mud Mountain Dam. The Corps of
Engineers relies upon the White River diversion dam and trap and haul
facilities to enable it to meet its fish passage needs for its Mud
Mountain Dam on the White River.
Finance Plan:
Since this is an Administration request, specifics on the funds and
how they will be used will be available from the USACE Seattle District
office, once they have arrived at a funding level for FY 2010.
(4) $500,000 for the City of Issaquah, WA for the Issaquah Highlands
Zero Energy Affordable Housing.
Requesting Entity: King County, 516 Third Ave, Room 1200, Seattle, WA
98104
Agency: Department of Energy
Account: EERE
Funding requested by: Rep. Dave Reichert
To build a cutting edge, attached residential green building
demonstration project which will be one of the most innovative green
housing projects in the Pacific Northwest. The project involves the
design, construction, and sale of 10 attached residential homes, built
to an extremely green standard. Funding would be used to expand the
zero emission project to include an adjacent 150-unit affordable
housing project planned by a partnership of the YWCA of Seattle, King
County, Snohomish County, and the City of Issaquah.
Finance Plan:

ISSAQUAH HIGHLANDS PROJECT FINANCE PLAN

Total Project Cost: $55.4 million
Public Sources: $16.6 million which includes City in-kind value of
land and waived fees of $7.1 million)
Private (individual, corporate, foundation) donations: $12 million
YWCA Loan and Contributions: $1.8
Debt via tax-exempt bonds: $7.8
Low Income Housing Tax Credit Equity: $17.2
Given the anticipated schedule, our contractor assumes the
construction alone would take 457,000 man hours, which equals 114 FTE
for the duration of the project (about 2 yrs). However, since most
people would only be on the job for their scope of work, maybe 6 months
average duration, it really would employ more like 450+ people. This
number does not take into account the support-related positions such as
accountants, bookkeepers, attorneys, architects, suppliers, concrete
truck drivers, city inspectors, etc. (5) $500,000 for the City of
Redmond for research and development of liquid carriers for hydrogen
energy.
Requesting Entity: Asemblon, Inc., 15340 NE 92nd Street, Suite B,
Redmond, WA 98052
Agency: Department of Energy
Account: EERE
Funding requested by: Rep. Dave Reichert
For molecular carrier technology that allows hydrogen to be
transported, stored and dispensed in liquid form at ambient temperature
and pressure. This will allow the use of the currently available
gasoline infrastructure to dispense hydrogen which will then be
released on demand for automotive combustion. Existing internal
combustion engines can be economically retrofitted for this purpose.
With the requested funding we will fully demonstrate all aspects of
this process. The ability to incorporate hydrogen into our National
Energy schema has been impeded by the cost to store and transport it in
refrigerated and pressurized form. We have overcome this obstacle.
Their analysis shows that they can install hydrogen stations at \1/10\
the cost of conventional hydrogen systems thereby accelerating hydrogen
adoption, more rapidly reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and
reducing CO2 emissions on a 1:1 basis hydrocarbon combustion
is reduced.
Finance Plan:

FY10 PROJECT REQUEST DOE EERE ASEMBLON, INC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRNOLTM fueling station Qty Price Extension Total Purchased equip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-Foot Shipping Container
Design and Development Charges............................... 1 10,000 10,000
Fabrication to Specification................................. 2 8,500 17,000 ................. 17,000
Painting and Graphics........................................ 2 3,500 7,000
Shipment..................................................... 2 1,200 2,400
Site Preparation............................................. 2 6,500 13,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 2 4,500 9,000
-------------------------------------
58,400 17,000
Fuel Bladders
Design and Development....................................... 1 12,500 12,500
RFQ Prototypes............................................... 4 6,500 26,000
Testing to Destruction for Pressure.......................... 4 3,000 12,000
Redesign..................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
Production Bladders.......................................... 8 5,500 44,000
Installation and Testing..................................... 2 4,000 8,000
Lifetime Cycle Testing (600 fill cycles)..................... 2 12,500 25,000
-------------------------------------
132,500 0
Fueling Pumps
Design and Development....................................... 1 12,500 12,500
Prototypes................................................... 4 15,000 60,000 ................. 60,000
Testing...................................................... 2 7,500 15,000
Redesign..................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
Production Modifications..................................... 6 3,500 21,000
Testing...................................................... 1 8,000 8,000
Human Factors................................................ 1 7,500 7,500
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 6,000 6,000
Lifetime Cycle Testing (40,000 fills)........................ 2 15,000 30,000
-------------------------------------
165,000 60,000
Battery Back-up Power System and Conditioner
Design and Development....................................... 1 7,500 7,500
RFQ Purchased Parts (batteries, inverter).................... 2 37,800 75,600 ................. 75,600

[[Page 18573]]

Installation................................................. 2 6,500 13,000
Testing...................................................... 2 5,000 10,000
Production Modifications..................................... 2 3,500 7,000
Certification................................................ 1 8,000 8,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 7,500 7,500
-------------------------------------
128,600 75,600
Renewable Energy Power System
Design and Development....................................... 1 5,500 5,500
RFQ Purchased Parts (. . .).................................. 2 32,500 65,000 ................. 65,000
Installation................................................. 2 7,500 15,000
Testing...................................................... 2 4,500 9,000
Production Modifications..................................... 2 3,500 7,000
Certification................................................ 1 10,000 10,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 5,500 5,500
-------------------------------------
117,000 65,000
Self-Contained Security System
Design and Development....................................... 1 7,500 7,500
RFQ Purchased Parts (. . .).................................. 2 20,000 40,000 ................. 40,000
Installation................................................. 2 5,000 10,000
Testing...................................................... 2 4,500 9,000
Production Modifications..................................... 2 3,500 7,000
Certification................................................ 1 5,000 5,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 6,500 6,500
-------------------------------------
85,000 40,000
Roll-back Truck for Statewide Demonstrations
Design and Development....................................... 1 7,500 7,500
RFQ Purchased Parts (. . .).................................. 1 46,000 46,000 ................. 46,000
Testing...................................................... 2 4,500 9,000
Production Modifications..................................... 2 3,500 7,000
-------------------------------------
69,500 46,000
-------------------------------------
Sub-total Hydrogen Fueling Station....................... ......... ................. ................. 756,000 303,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRNOLTM Conversion and Compression Qty Price Extension Total Purchased equip.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20-Foot Shipping Container
Design and Development Charges............................... 1 15,000 15,000
Fabrication to Specification................................. 1 8,500 8,500
Painting and Graphics........................................ 1 3,500 3,500
Shipment..................................................... 1 1,200 1,200
ND Site Preparation.......................................... 1 85,000 85,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 10,000 10,000
-------------------------------------
123,200 0
Triple-stage Compressors
Design and Development....................................... 1 12,500 12,500
QTE Triple-stage Compressor to 12,000 ps..................... 1 185,000 185,000 ................. 185,000
Plumbing, Valves, Controls................................... 1 90,000 90,000 ................. 90,000
Testing...................................................... 1 12,500 12,500
Certification................................................ 1 10,000 10,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 10,000 10,000
-------------------------------------
320,000 275,000
Hydrogen Storage Tanks (12,000 psig)
Design and Development....................................... 1 9,500 9,500
Prototypes................................................... 2 30,000 60,000 ................. 60,000
Testing...................................................... 1 7,500 7,500
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 10,000 10,000
-------------------------------------
87,000 60,000
Hydrogen Dispensers (5,000 + 10,000 psig)
Design and Development....................................... 1 7,500 7,500
Purchased Parts.............................................. 1 90,000 90,000 ................. 90,000
Installation................................................. 1 6,500 6,500
Testing...................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
Production Modifications..................................... 1 3,500 3,500
Certification................................................ 1 8,000 8,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 7,500 7,500
-------------------------------------
128,000 90,000
Self-Contained Security System
Design and Development....................................... 1 6,000 6,000
RFQ Purchased Parts (. . .).................................. 1 20,000 20,000 ................. 20,000
Installation................................................. 1 6,000 6,000
Testing...................................................... 1 4,500 4,500
Production Modifications..................................... 1 3,500 3,500
Certification................................................ 1 5,000 5,000
Regulatory, Inspection, Fire Marshall........................ 1 4,500 4,500
-------------------------------------
49,500 20,000
Roll-back Truck for Statewide Demonstrations
Design and Development....................................... 1 3,000 3,000
RFQ Purchased Parts (. . .).................................. 1 46,000 46,000 ................. 46,000
Testing...................................................... 1 4,500 4,500
Production Modifications..................................... 1 3,500 3,500
-------------------------------------
57,000 46,000
-------------------------------------
Sub-total HYDRNOL Conversion and Compression Unit........ ......... ................. ................. 764,700 491,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18574]]

Modification................................................. 1 4,500 4,500
-------------------------------------
115,000 80,000
HYDRNOL Retrofit Kit for Cars and Light Trucks
Design....................................................... 1 50,000 50,000
Prototypes................................................... 4 15,000 60,000 ................. 60,000
Modification................................................. 1 5,000 5,000
Testing...................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
Pre-production............................................... 4 10,000 40,000
Testing...................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
Modification................................................. 1 7,500 7,500
E Production................................................. 10 7,500 75,000 ................. 75,000
-------------------------------------
247,500 135,000
Bellevue School Bus Modifications
Design and Fabrication of Storage Tank....................... 1 5,500 5,500
Installation of HYDRNOL Retrofit Kit......................... 1 4,000 . 4,000
Engine/Air Cleaner Modifications............................. 8 4,000 32,000
Computer Ignition Timing Modification........................ 1 5,000 5,000
Testing...................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
-------------------------------------
51,500 0
North Dakota Chevrolet Silverado Truck
ND Delivery of Silverado from North Dakota................... 1 2,500 2,500
Design and Fabrication of Storage Tank....................... 1 8,500 8,500
Installation of HYDRNOL Retrofit Kit......................... 1 4,000 4,000
Injector Modifications....................................... 8 4,000 32,000
Computer Ignition Timing Modification........................ 1 5,000 5,000
Testing...................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
-------------------------------------
57,000 0
1988 Corvette Modifications
Design and Fabrication of Storage Tank....................... 1 5,500 5,500
Installation of HYDRNOL Retrofit Kit......................... 1 4,000 4,000
Injector Modifications....................................... 8 4,000 32,000
Computer Ignition Timing Modification........................ 1 5,000 5,000
Testing...................................................... 1 5,000 5,000
-------------------------------------
51,500 0
-------------------------------------
Sub-total HYDRNOL Fuel Delivery and Vehicle Mods......... ......... ................. ................. 522,500 215,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY10 Project request summary DOE EERE Purchased
Asemblon, Inc. Total equip.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HYDRNOL Fueling Station....................... 756,000 303,600
HYDRNOL Conversion and Compression Unit....... 764,700 491,000
HYDRNOL Fuel Delivery and Vehicle Mods........ 522,500 215,000
-------------------------
Total..................................... ###### ######
Overhead--30.0%........................... 612,960
Travel + Living........................... 24,000
Grand Total........................... ######
=============
``In-kind'' Contributions
Design + Development.................. 40,000
Overhead Expenses..................... 612,960
Travel + Living....................... 24,000
-------------
Total ``In-kind''..................... 676,960
=============
Net Grant Request......................... ###### 25.3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(6) $1,000,000 for the University of Washington for biofuels industry
development.
Requesting Entity: University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
Agency: Department of Energy
Account: EERE
Funding requested by: Reps. Dave Reichert, Jim McDermott, Adam Smith
Research and development to convert Washington mixed biomass sources
into transportation fuels. The center is lacking critical equipment and
lab facilities to do the comprehensive research that is necessary to
design a commercial scale facility. Acquisition of the required
equipment would provide for the establishment of a world class research
laboratory and a comprehensive services laboratory that Washington
state commercial operations will need to optimize and refine their
processes.
Finance Plan:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item priority Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory renovations and modernization $1,500,000 \1/2\A & \1/
2\B''
Processing equipment
High-Throughput Catalyst Test 150,000 B
Reactor............................
Catalytic Flow reactors (2)......... 80,000 B
Recirculation high temperature & 50,000 C
high pressure......................
High pressure fuel injection system 80,000 B
for fuel analysis..................
High pressure steam reactor with 500,000 A
decompression capability and boiler
2L and 40L Fermenters............... 300,000 \1/2\B & \1/
2\C
Large scale autoclave............... 80,000 C
Large scale high speed centrifuge... 40,000 C
Glove box and other miscellaneous 75,000 C
supplies...........................
Analytical Equipment
Variable Temperature Atomic 250,000 B
Microscope (STM-AFM)...............
Infrared spectrometer (including 250,000 C
DRIFTS capabilities & IR
microscope)........................
GC-Mass spectrometer................ 200,000 C
HPLC configured for catalysis 75,000 B
research...........................
On line mass spectrometer........... 50,000 C
GC and Micro GC for fast analysis... 100,000 B
Liquid Chromatography Mass 180,000 A
Spectroscopy LCMS..................
X-ray Diffractometry................ 190,000 C
Elemental Analyzer.................. 80,000 C
Confocal microscope................. 300,000 B
Fast protein liquid chromatograph... 125,000 C
----------------
Total........................... 4,655,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 18575]]

This office conducted site visits to meet with representatives from
all of the projects listed above.

____________________

35TH YEAR OF INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF CYPRUS

______

HON. JOHN P. SARBANES

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, today I rise, like so many have done
before me for 35 years now, and lament the unjust division of the
Republic of Cyprus.
For more than 60 years, the United States has extended the hand of
friendship to Turkey, offering her material support, offering her
military protection and most importantly, engaging our Turkish friend
and ally with the respect, admiration, and dignity that emanate from
our great Nation's democratic values.
Just a few months ago, President Obama paid a historic visit to
Turkey where he called upon the European Union to embrace Turkey's
application to join that body of peace loving, democratic nations, and
as well, he called for a just and lasting settlement that reunifies
Cyprus as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.
Last year, upon this remembrance, I commended the noble efforts
exerted by the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities to reunify
their island republic. Today, 1 year later, I again praise President
Dimitrios Christofias and Turkish Cypriot Leader Mehmet Ali Talat for
their commitment to peace and unity.
So why then, with Cypriot leadership committed to reunification,
Turkey's NATO membership since 1952, United Nations' diplomatic
initiatives and the appointment of numerous special American, British
and E.U. envoys, does Cyprus remain divided and occupied for 35 years?
For three and a half decades, the international community has
unequivocally called for the removal of the 45,000 Turkish troops
garrisoned in the occupied north, so that the people of Cyprus may be
relieved of the humanitarian hardship and injustice brought on by
Turkey's hostile occupation.
In 1975, this Chamber imposed sanctions upon Turkey and refused to
allow sales or aid of American military equipment to Turkey, because of
its unlawful invasion and occupation of Cyprus. That embargo was lifted
by the exigencies of the Cold War, because the Turkish military
retaliated against the United States by denying use of strategic
military assets located in Turkey.
From the outset of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus to this day, the
United Nations has repeatedly called for the removal of Turkish
occupation forces and for the respect of the sovereignty, independence
and territorial integrity of Cyprus.
Following high level U.N. brokered talks in 1979, Turkey agreed as a
confidence building measure to withdraw and handover the uninhabited
city of Famagusta to its rightful inhabitants. In this regard, U.N.
Security Council Resolution 550/1984 calls for the transfer of the
occupied, but uninhabited, city of Famagusta to the United Nations for
the orderly resettlement of the city by its rightful inhabitants. To
this day, Turkey has reneged on its pledge to comply with the
agreements achieved during the high level talks and has completely
disregarded the U.N. resolutions on Famagusta.
As recently as May 2009, the U.N. Secretary General placed the blame
for the failure to return Famagusta to its rightful inhabitants
squarely upon the Government of Turkey. This Chamber has also enacted
section 620C(a)(5) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2373 (a)(5)) in support of the United Nations Secretary General's
efforts to resettle the occupied, but uninhabited, city of Famagusta by
its rightful inhabitants. Turkey, our NATO ally and beneficiary of
significant American support, has ignored America's calls for
compliance with the return of Famagusta, just as it has ignored the
U.N.'s.
Today, Senator Cardin and Congressman Hastings of the Helsinki
Commission held a briefing on the destruction of the history, heritage
and culture in the occupied north of Cyprus. As that briefing pointed
out, despite clear international commitments on the importance of
preserving religious and cultural heritage, hundreds of churches,
chapels and monasteries in the northern part of Cyprus remain in peril.
Thousands of icons, manuscripts, frescos, and mosaics have been looted
from sites in northern Cyprus--many ending up on international auction
blocks. The United States, the E.U. and the United Nations have all
called on Turkey to honor its international obligations and cease and
desist from this further hostility to the people of Cyprus. This begs
the question, how can Turkey seek to join the European Union, all the
while it is destroying the very existence of European history and
culture in the north of Cyprus.
The European Union has also called on Turkey to honor its agreement
to open its ports and airspace to Republic of Cyprus flagged vessels.
Rather than comply with its commitments, Turkey demands that the E.U.
engage in international economic activity with the unlawfully occupied
north of the island republic. It is incredible that Turkey would refuse
to open its ports and airspace and extend legal recognition to a member
state of the European Union all the while it seeks to become a full
fledged member of that Union.
The United States rightly places great importance in strategically
mooring Turkey to the E.U. and America, but I am greatly concerned that
Turkey does not share our vision or commitment to the liberal
democratic processes that works to ensure global peace and stability.
There are no greater advocates for Turkey's acceptance into the
European Union, than Greece, Cyprus and the United States. Despite the
fact that Turkey has bullied and beaten the small island Republic of
Cyprus, Cyprus has shown great humanity by demanding of its fellow E.U.
members that Turkey should be afforded the right to join the E.U.
The Republic of Cyprus has gone the extra mile to keep its Turkish
speaking citizens engaged in its democratic and economic successes, it
has gone the extra mile to engage Turkey and normalize relations, and
it has gone the extra mile by becoming an advocate of Turkey's entry
into the E.U. Unfortunately, Turkey has not responded in kind. To this
very day, Turkey violates the territorial integrity of Cypriot seas and
air space. It acts to limit the economic activities of the tiny
republic and it subjects it to the menacing threat of a massively armed
contingent of 45,000 soldiers.
The division of Cyprus is a matter of invasion and occupation, and
not as Turkey claims, a matter of inter-communal conflict. On this very
point, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has held time and time
again that Turkey exercises ``effective overall control of northern
Cyprus through its military presence there . . .'' and stresses the
point ``that Turkey's responsibility under the [European] Convention
could not be confined to the acts of its own soldiers and officials
operating in northern Cyprus, but was also engaged by virtue of the
acts of the local administration . . ., which survived by virtue of
Turkish military and other support.'' There can be no doubt from the
rulings of the ECHR that the division of the Republic of Cyprus
continues because of the Turkish military occupation.
The Cyprus problem pits American allies against one another and
impedes the orderly progress of NATO and the E.U. in a strategically
vital part of the world. The time has come for us to ask ourselves, is
the Government of Turkey part of the solution or is it the very heart
of the problem. How Turkey resolves the division of Cyprus will work to
define how Turkey will be engaged by Europe. Should Turkey continue to
occupy Cyprus as a post-imperial power with no regard for its prior
commitments to international agreements and with no sense of obligation
to the very European heritage, history and culture that it must uphold
as an aspirant member of the E.U., Turkey will by its own hand
foreclose its chances of joining the European Union.
Madam Speaker, Turkey is gambling with more than even the democratic
liberties of the people of Cyprus. I fear that should Turkey fail to
honor democracy, human rights and the rule of law, Turkey will drift
away from the United States and Europe and chart a course that will be
openly adverse to the interest of NATO, America and the E.U. It is high
time that we engage our ally, while we still can, and ensure a
democratic resolution to the division of Cyprus.