Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 85.
April 21, 2005
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
February 9, 2005
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1214)
February 9, 2005
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1214-1215)
February 9, 2005
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
April 21, 2005
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Specter without amendment. Without written report.
April 21, 2005
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 85.
April 21, 2005
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about S. 339 on the floor
MU
JK
JB
JDR
DRO+19
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about S. 339 on the floor
Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes some items that I strongly support, and other things that I think should not have been included. On balance, I will vote for it because I think it would…
Mr. Speaker, this conference report includes some items that I strongly support, and other things that I think should not have been included. On balance, I will vote for it because I think it would unrealistic and irresponsible to do otherwise.
Funding for Military Activities
Most of the money appropriated by this legislation is for our ongoing military activities, especially in Iraq. Passage of this conference report will bring the total cost of operations in Iraq to well over $200 billion--and by now, two years after President Bush prematurely announced the end of major military activities in Iraq, I think even those who have been uncritical supporters of the Administration should be deeply concerned about the escalating costs, not just in money but in casualties.
The time has come--in fact, it is long since past--for the Administration to be candid about the costs not just of the war in Iraq but of the Administration's overall foreign policy. This should be the last time that the Administration or the Congress pays those costs through a supplemental appropriation bill instead of the regular budgetary and appropriation process. The American people deserve to know in advance what they will be asked to pay to support the Administration's policies.
Nonetheless, Congress must not fail to supply our troops. Funds in this conference report will pay for more resources, including body armor and military equipment, needed to safeguard their lives. The conference report also includes important provisions to raise the military death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 and to include a new insurance benefit of up to $100,000 for soldiers who have suffered traumatic injuries. The report also increases funding for body armor for the Army and Marines, add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and electronic roadside-bomb jammers--and includes funding for contract linguists for the Army.
Further, there is an imperative need for this funding. The Defense Department reports that
operating funds for the Army are nearing exhaustion and that it will be necessary to transfer more than $1 billion from other accounts to continue essential activities at home and abroad until these supplemental funds are available.
In short, the choice before us today is to vote for this supplemental or, by voting against it, to in effect require an immediate halt to military operations not just in Iraq but elsewhere.
And while I remain convinced it was an error to rush into war in Iraq, I am equally convinced it would be just as much an error to rush to withdraw.
We do need a strategy to get us out--which is why I'm pleased that the conferees included language directing the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress with a report that identifies security, economic, and Iraqi security force training-performance standards and goals, accompanied by a timetable for achieving these goals.
But an immediate departure is neither good strategy nor would it mean peace for Iraq.
I recently returned from my second trip to Iraq--this time as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee. As a critic of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq, I did not go there to confirm my opposition to the war, but rather, to gain knowledge based on face-to- face conversations with our military leaders, the Iraqi leadership, an extraordinary group of Iraqi women, and most important for me, with our troops on the ground.
I am convinced that there can be no successful exit strategy without first doing what is needed to enable the new Iraqi government to take up the burden of providing security. That will take time and money, and in the meantime we must maintain our efforts. As the former head of American forces in northern Iraq, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, said recently, ``We don't want a rush to failure.''
So, for me, the need to support the military funding in this conference report--however unpleasant--is clear.
Other Funds
The conference report also provides funding for tsunami disaster relief as well as for assistance in Darfur, food aid to Sudan and Liberia, and for peacekeeping programs, most of which are for Sudan. Importantly, the bill appropriates the president's request of $200 million for economic development in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Immigration Provisions
Other parts of the conference report are problematical, particularly the inclusion of provisions like those in the ``REAL ID Act,'' legislation that I opposed when the House passed it in February. I believe these provisions will not strengthen national security, but will create undue difficulties for asylum seekers and excessively expand the powers of the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is a controversial issue that should have been addressed separately, not incorporated into this legislation.
An editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News says this part of the conference report ``has much more to do with immigration than security'' and is just ``one piece of a policy, poorly thought out and scarcely debated at all, and likely to have unintended consequences.'' I think that is an accurate description.
The Conference report also includes a provision that would revise the H-2B visa program, under which people can come into the country legally for seasonal non-agricultural work.
Several industries in Colorado are heavily dependent on the H-2B visa program to provide seasonal employees--some in the summer and some in the winter. While most of these companies try hard to find Americans to fill these jobs, they have not been fully successful. And the current limit on the numbers of visas has made it difficult for many of them to find the people they need. So, they have been asking Congress to revise the program.
However, while I am pleased that the report attempts to provide relief to companies struggling to find eligible employees, the specific provisions have some problems and may detrimentally affect some of the companies that have employed people entering under the H-2B program. This is particularly true for companies whose busy season is in the winter, such as the ski industry. They would actually be detrimentally affected by this provision because they do not rehire the same workers every year, and thus do not benefit from the provisions in the conference report that will exempt previously hired workers from the overall limit on the number of visas.
I wrote to conferees to urge a solution to the H-2B visa problem that would be equitable for both the winter and summer industries. Regrettably, the conference report does not fully meet that test. Still, it does make a good start to addressing the H-2B visa problem. I hope that we will be able to build on this foundation in the future so as to protect the interests of both summer and winter industries.
State Regulation of Hunting and Fishing
The conference report also includes, as Section 6063, provisions to reaffirm the authority of the States and Territories to regulate hunting and fishing.
This part of the conference report is identical to the text of H.R. 731, which I introduced in the House, and to S. 339, introduced in the Senate by Senator Reid of Nevada. I applaud Senator Reid's leadership in having this included when the Senate considered this supplemental appropriations bill and I am glad that it was accepted by the conferees. It will do two things--
(1) Declare as Congressional policy that it is in the public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and non-residents; and
(2) Provide that courts should not use Congressional silence as a reason to impose any commerce-clause barrier to a State's or tribe's regulation of hunting or fishing.
Its purpose is to reaffirm the authority of States and Territories to regulate hunting and fishing by resolving questions that have arisen in the wake of a recent 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that held that some Arizona limits on non-resident hunting permits had constitutional defects.
Ideally, of course, legislation of this sort should be handled through the regular authorization process, and I had hoped that the Resources Committee would have taken it up by now. However, State fish and wildlife agencies will soon be considering regulations for coming seasons, and it is important that questions about their authority be resolved without unnecessary delay.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new about a State's having different rules for resident and nonresident hunters or anglers. Colorado draws that distinction in several ways, and many other States do so as well.
And while there have been challenges to the validity of such rules, until recently the Federal courts have upheld the right of the States to make such distinctions. For example, in 1987 the Federal district court for Colorado, in the case of Terk v. Ruch (reported at 655 F. Supp. 205), rejected a challenge to Colorado's regulations that allocated to Coloradans 90% of the available permits for hunting bighorn sheep and mountain goats. But a recent Court of Appeals decision marked a change--something that definitely is new.
In that case (Conservation Force v. Manning, 301 F.3rd 985; 9th Cir. 2002), the Federal appeals court for the 9th Circuit held that Arizona's 10% cap on nonresident hunting of bull elk throughout the State and of antlered deer north of the Colorado River had enough of an effect on interstate commerce that it could run afoul of what lawyers and judges call the ``dormant commerce clause'' of the Constitution.
Having reached that conclusion, the appeals court determined that the Arizona regulation discriminated against interstate commerce--meaning the ``dormant commerce clause'' did apply and that the regulation was subject to strict scrutiny, and could be upheld only if it served legitimate State purposes and the State could show that those interests could not be adequately served by reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives.
The appeals court went on to find that the regulations did further Arizona's legitimate interests in conserving its population of game and maintaining recreational opportunities for its citizens, but it remanded the case so a lower court could determine whether the State could meet the burden of showing that reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives would not be adequate.
Because of the decision's potential implications for their own laws and regulations, it was a source of concern to many States in addition to Arizona. In fact, 22 other States joined in supporting Arizona's request for the decision to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Colorado was one of those States, and Senator Ken Salazar, who was then Colorado's Attorney General, joined in signing a brief in support of Arizona's petition for Supreme Court review.
Regrettably, the Supreme Court denied that petition. So, for now, the 9th Circuit's decision stands. Its immediate effect is on States whose Federal courts are within that circuit--namely those in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington as well those of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas. But it could have an effect on the thinking of Federal courts across the country.
The purpose of this part of the conference report is to forestall that outcome, and so far as possible to return to the state of affairs prevailing before the 9th circuit's decision. It is intended to speak directly to the ``dormant commerce clause'' basis for the 9th Circuit's decision in Conservation Force v. Manning.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that lawyers and judges use that term to refer to the judicially established doctrine that the commerce clause is not only a ``positive'' grant of power to Congress, but also a ``negative'' constraint upon the States in the absence of any Congressional action--in other words, that it restricts the powers of the States to affect interstate commerce in a situation where Congress has been silent.
Section 6036(b)(1) would end the perceived silence of Congress by affirmatively stating that State regulation of fishing and hunting-- including State regulation that treats residents and non-residents differently--is in the public interest. This is intended to preclude future application of the ``dormant commerce clause'' doctrine with regard to such regulations. And Section 6036(b)(2) would make it clear that even when Congress might have been silent about the subject, that silence is not to be construed as imposing a commerce-clause barrier to a State's regulation of hunting or fishing within its borders.
These provisions are neither a Federal mandate for State action nor a Congressional delegation of authority to any State. Instead, they are intended to reaffirm State authority and make clear that the ``dormant commerce clause''--that is, Congressional inaction--is not to be construed as an obstacle to a State's regulating hunting or fishing, even in ways that some might claim adversely affect interstate commerce by treating residents differently from nonresidents.
It's also important to note that this part of the conference report is not intended to affect any Federal law already on the books or to limit any authority of any Indian Tribe.
Section 6036(c) is intended to prevent any misunderstanding on these points.
Section 6036(c)(1) specifies that the bill will not ``limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or to the regulation of commerce.''
Thus, to take just a few examples for purposes of illustration, this part of the conference report will not affect implementation of the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Lacey Act, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act, or the provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act dealing with subsistence.
Section 6036(c)(2) similarly provides that the bill is not to be read as limiting the authority of the Federal government to temporarily or permanently prohibit hunting or fishing on any portion of the Federal lands--as has been done with various National Park System units and in some other parts of the Federal lands for various reasons, including public safety as well as the protection of fish or wildlife.
And Section 6036(c)(3) explicitly provides that the bill will not alter any of the rights of any Indian Tribe.
These provisions are narrow in scope but of national importance because it addresses a matter of great concern to hunters, anglers, and wildlife managers in many States. I think they deserve broad support.
conclusion
In conclusion, while this conference report is far from perfect, I think it deserves to pass and I will vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee on this, his maiden effort, to bring a major supplemental appropriation to the floor as chairman, and I…
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the chairman of the full committee on this, his maiden effort, to bring a major supplemental appropriation to the floor as chairman, and I congratulate him for the leadership that he has shown in bringing this so swiftly to this floor.
I do rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268. Before I address the funding that is the responsibility of my subcommittee, I want to briefly acknowledge a critically important part of this bill, border security funding. The securing of our Nation's borders to prevent the hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my State of Arizona has got to be a top priority for the Federal Government. The people I represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. Arizona and other border States can no longer serve as the back door for this country's broken immigration system. By adding the funding that we do in this bill, we are taking a step in the right direction to ensure our northern and southern borders are protected.
Regarding the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee chapter of this legislation, the conference report includes $2.53 billion in funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Subcommittee, which I chair. While this overall level is $1.4 billion less than requested, let me say once again I strongly support the objectives of the President that he seeks to achieve with this request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the tsunami-devastated areas of Asia. I believe that this conference agreement provides the financial support necessary to help the United States achieve these objectives.
The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the House-passed levels are additional funds for Afghanistan reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine. The $739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan reconstruction represented the highest priority projects that could be implemented and executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, the administration's request. And the conference level is $1.086 billion, or $347 million over what the House had recommended. This increase over the House level supports some 2006 requirements, which is, I believe, a cost-effective approach to the 2006 budget process.
The House provided no funding for the administration's $400 million Solidarity Initiative. The Senate provide a total of $225.5 million, $200 million in the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War on Terror Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of $230 million, merging the two funds into one appropriation, and places these funds within Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This arrangement provides for regular order congressional review of the Department's plans for these funds.
The conference agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine, and these funds will support the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for political and economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives and support for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. This agreement will provide the financial resources necessary to promote democracy and provide the State Department with programs and projects to support these positive influences.
Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region and on American soil. However, Congress has the responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, and we take that responsibility seriously with reporting requirements, and we will continue vigorous oversight of these programs.
The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that these decisions we make directly put the lives of Americans at risk. I firmly believe the bill before us today will help build stability and freedom in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268.
I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1268, a bill making emergency supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005.
Before I address the funding in my subcommittee, I wanted to briefly acknowledge a critically important part of this bill--border security funding. The securing of our nation's borders to prevent the hemorrhaging flow of illegal immigration through my state of Arizona must be a top priority for the federal government. The people I represent living on the border are frustrated with the illegal immigration system, and we must address gaps in border security now. Arizona and other border states can no longer serve as the backdoor for this country's broken immigration system. By adding this funding we are taking a step in the right direction to ensure our northern and southern borders are protected.
I am pleased that my colleagues on the conference committee agreed to provide $635 million for Border Security to hire an additional 500 Border Patrol Agents, 50 additional criminal investigators, 168 Immigration Enforcement Agents and Deportation Officers, and to fund 1,950 additional detention beds.
The bill also includes my amendment to strengthen the REAL ID Act to address the technology, equipment, and personnel needs improving security within the U.S., requiring Department of Homeland Security to carry out an improved ground surveillance program, and requiring DHS to improve interagency communication.
Regarding the Foreign Operations Subcommittee chapter, the conference agreement includes $2.532 billion, in funding for programs under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Operations subcommittee of which I am Chairman. This amount is $685 million over the House level, $251 million less than the Senate level, and $1.4 billion less than the Administration's request.
While this overall level is $1.4 billion less than requested, let me say once again that I strongly support the objectives the President seeks to achieve with this request for Afghanistan, the Middle East, and the tsunami devastated areas of Asia. I believe that, with the understanding that we need to reduce our federal deficit, this conference agreement provides the financial support necessary to help the United States achieve these objectives.
The major elements of the conference agreement that differ from the House passed-level are: additional funds for Afghanistan reconstruction, the Solidarity Initiative, and support for Ukraine.
The $739 million proposed by the House for Afghanistan reconstruction, represented the highest priority projects that could be implemented and executed during 2005. The Senate provided $1.3 billion, the Administration's request. The conference level is $1.086 billion, $347 million over the House recommendation. The increase over the House level supports some 2006 requirements--a cost effective approach to the 2006 budget process--such as $101.4 million for two additional power plants, $8.4 million for a water pipeline, $72 million for additional roads and infrastructure, and $43 million for economic governance.
The House provided no funding for the Administration's $400 million ``Solidarity Initiative.'' The Solidarity Initiative request of $400 million for two $200 million Funds to be used by the Secretary of State, as she determines, was to offset the costs of those countries that have dedicated troops to the Global War on Terror as well as economic support to other nations that have provided support. The Senate provided a total of $225.5 million--$200 million in the Solidarity Fund and $25.5 million in the Global War on Terror Partners Fund. The conference agreement provides a total of $230 million, merging the two Funds into one appropriation and places these funds within the Peacekeeping Operations appropriations. This arrangement provides for regular order Congressional review of the Department's plans for these funds. This will provide sufficient oversight of a substantial amount of money for the Global War on Terror.
The House provided $33.7 million for support to Ukraine. The Senate provided the Administration's request of $60 million. The conference agreement provides $60 million for Ukraine. These funds will support the government of Ukraine's highest priorities for political and economic reform, including anti-corruption initiatives and support for the upcoming parliamentary elections.
I think my colleagues recognize that we are faced with unique opportunities in the Middle East and Afghanistan. U.S. leadership can have positive, democratic influence in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, Belarus, and Ukraine. This agreement will provide the financial resources necessary to promote democracy and provide State Department with programs and projects to support these positive influences.
Finally, the conference agreement provides $656 million for assistance to the victims of the tsunami and earthquakes of last December and March.
Let me say that the funds we are providing in the foreign assistance chapter must be considered an investment in security both in the region and on American soil. However, Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and transparently, and I know my colleagues take that responsibility seriously. We have included financial reporting requirements for all funds in the Foreign Operations chapter. For Afghanistan counternarcotics and West Bank Gaza programs, we have included additional auditing requirements. As Chairman, I pledge to continue vigorous oversight of these programs.
The greatest weight all of us must bear is the knowledge that decisions we make as Members of Congress directly puts the lives of Americans at risk. Already, men and women from probably every district represented today have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan. I firmly believe the bill before us today will help to build stability and freedom in Afghanistan, the Middle East and parts of Asia.
Again, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on passage of the fiscal year 2005 emergency supplemental conference report on H.R. 1268.
Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have worked together successfully on several issues within the last year to defend and improve our Nation's health care safety, including on an amendment to the…
Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have worked together successfully on several issues within the last year to defend and improve our Nation's health care safety, including on an amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill addressing community health center payments within Medicare that passed by a vote of 94-1. However, none of these initiatives have been more important than the legislation that we are introducing together today, along with a list of 13 other senators--7 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent, 7 of which serve on the Senate Finance Committee--to create a Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid.
Joining Senator Smith and I as original cosponsors are: Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Santorum, Kerry, DeWine, Durbin, Chafee, Lincoln, Collins, Nelson of Nebraska, Voinovich, Corzine, and Coleman.
I will not go into the specifics of the legislation, as Senator Smith has explained how the Commission would be formed and would operate. Instead, I will take the time to explain why it is that the formation of commission is so important.
Medicaid is a critically important health care safety net program that provides health care services to over 50 million low-income children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities.
In New Mexico, Medicaid is the single largest payor for health care. All told, Medicaid covers the health care costs of more than 400,000 New Mexicans--nearly one-quarter of our State's population.
Although the least expensive to cover, those who benefit most from Medicaid are nearly 300,000 of New Mexico's children. Of the various populations covered, children represent almost two-thirds of all our State's beneficiaries, which is the highest ratio in the Nation according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
However, Medicaid is much more than just a safety net program for children from low-income families. It also serves low-income adults and pregnant women. It also serves senior citizens and people with disabilities who receive the bulk of their health care through Medicare but who still rely on Medicaid for a substantial share of their benefits and cost-sharing assistance. Medicaid also provides critically needed funding to support our Nation's safety net providers, including disproportionate share hospitals.
In the President's budget that was just released, the administration has proposed cutting Medicaid by $60 billion over the next 10 years. Secretary Leavitt recently testified in the Senate Finance Committee that he believes ``Medicaid is flawed and inefficient.''
There are others that believe Medicaid is not working and that costs are spiraling out of control and so the program needs dramatic overhaul.
In contrast. there are also those that will attest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Medicaid. I firmly believe neither point of view is correct.
First, Medicaid is far from broken. The cost per person in Medicaid rose just 4.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2004. That compares to a 12 percent rise in the annual cost of premiums in the private sector. If that is the comparison, Medicaid seems to be about the most efficient health care program around, even more so than Medicare.
The overall cost of Medicaid is going up largely, not because the program is inefficient, but because more and more people find themselves depending on this safety net program for their health care during a recession. When nearly 5 million people lost employer coverage between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid added nearly 6 million to its program. Costs rose in Medicaid precisely because it is working--and working well--as our Nation's safety net program.
Consequently, as noted previously, Medicaid now provides health care to over 50 million low-income Americans, including one-quarter of all New Mexicans.
This is precisely why I so strongly oppose block grants or any arbitrary caps on Federal spending for Medicaid. If we had caps in 2000 and Medicaid could not have responded to the economic downturn, we would have 50 million uninsured today. Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership and an arbitrary cap of the Federal share to States is nothing more than the Federal Government trying to shift all risk to States.
On the other hand, it is also not true that Medicaid is not in need of improvement. The administration is rightly concerned about certain State efforts to provide ``enhanced payments'' to institutional providers as a significant factor in driving Medicaid costs. Secretary Leavitt, in a speech to the World Health Care Congress on February 1, 2005, referred to State efforts to maximize Federal funding as ``the Seven Harmful Habits of Highly Desperate States.'' As a result, he called for ``an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation with our funding partners, the States.''
Unfortunately, Medicaid reform driven by a budget reconciliation process is not a dialogue or conversation. It is a one-way mechanism for the Federal Government to impose its will on the States. The administration's budget calls for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid, including $40 billion that would directly harm States.
Where is the conversation in that? In fact, the States have a fair amount of complaint with Federal cost shifting to the States. While I certainly do not speak for the National Governors' Association or National Conference of States Legislatures, some of those grievances are rather obvious and I share them.
For example, according to data from Kaiser Family Foundation, 42 percent of the costs in Medicaid are due to Medicare dual eligible beneficiaries. These dual eligibles are also a major driver of health costs in Medicare and this is a prime example of where better coordination between Medicare and Medicaid could improve both programs. States have been calling for better coordination for years to no avail.
In the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed by the Congress in 2003, the Federal Government imposed what is referred to as a ``clawback'' mechanism which forces the States to help pay for the Federally-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Although States will derive a financial windfall from moving dual eligibles from Medicaid coverage to Medicare, some of the States believe the ``clawback'' will cost them more than if they continued to provide prescription drug coverage themselves.
The prescription drug bill also impacted States financially in a host of other ways that went largely unnoticed, including those that increased Medicaid costs for dual eligibles as a result of increases in the Medicare Part B deductible and increased payments to the new Medicare Advantage plans. The law also required States to help enroll low-income Medicare beneficiaries into the low-income drug benefit.
In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that States had $5.8 billion in added enrollment of dual eligibles in Medicaid due to what they refer to as a ``woodworking'' effect on dual eligibles trying to sign up for the low-income drug benefit discovering they are also eligible for Medicaid benefits. CBO further estimated that States had $3.1 billion in new administrative and other costs added by the prescription drug legislation.
States had no ability to ``have a conversation'' with the Federal Government about the imposition of such costs on them when the Medicare prescription1rrug drug bill was passed, but they should have and will have in our Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid.
Furthermore, due to a recent rebenchmarking done by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs with respect to the calculation of per capita income in the States and the application of that data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, many States, including New Mexico, will see a rather dramatic decline in their Federal Medicaid matching percentage. In fact, due to the rebenchmarking and other factors, 29 states will lose Medicaid funding in 2006 by an amount of in excess of $800 million. Again, this occurred with no dialogue or conversation.
Mr. President, I agree with Secretary Leavitt that there should be a conversation among all the stakeholders about the future of Medicaid and about what are the fair division of responsibilities between the Federal Government, States, local governments, providers, and the over 50 million people served by Medicaid. It is for this reason that the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid includes all of those stakeholders at the table to have a full discussion and debate about the future of Medicaid.
It is our intent that the recommendations would not be focused on cutting costs but about improving health care delivery to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both can and should be done.
There are those that will argue that a commission may not reach a consensus to make recommendations to
improve the Medicaid program and so is not worth the effort. I would strongly disagree and point to the fact that the National Academy for State Health Policy recently convened a workgroup they called Making Medicaid Work for the 21st Century that included many of the Medicaid stakeholders and came forth with a 78-page report with numerous recommendations with respect to eligibility, benefits, and financing. According to the report entitled Improving Health and Long-Term Care Coverage for Low-Income Americans, the workgroup attempted to ``assess areas where it would be most productive to focus on improvement in the program, and to develop consensus around recommendations for reform.'' I would underscore the emphasis of the workgroup on ``improving'' Medicaid and health coverage. This should be the primary and overriding goal of the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid that we are introducing today.
Before closing, I once again thank Senator Smith, the other 12 Senate cosponsors, and the various stakeholders--State and local governments, providers, and consumers that have endorsed this legislation--in an effort, not to cut Medicaid, but to make it more efficient and effective in the delivery of care to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.
I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Fact Sheet accompanying this legislation printed in the Record.
Mr. President, over the last several years as the economy came down from the high of the 1990s, we have seen how devastating it can be for workers when their companies declare bankruptcy. From the…
Mr. President, over the last several years as the economy came down from the high of the 1990s, we have seen how devastating it can be for workers when their companies declare bankruptcy. From the enormous Enron bankruptcy at the end of 2001 to the bankruptcies of Wheeling-Pitt and then Weirton Steel in my own home State, every bankruptcy has brought heartache for workers who had dedicated themselves to their employers. In many cases, employees and retirees have very limited ability to recover the wages, severance, or benefits they are due when their companies seek protection from creditors.
Workers deserve better. So today I am introducing the Bankruptcy Fairness Act to strengthen workers' rights in bankruptcy and to provide greater authority to bankruptcy courts to ensure a fair distribution of assets. I am very pleased that Senator Leahy, the distinguished ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee is an original cosponsor of this bill.
Specifically, the bill will do three things. It will ensure that retirees whose promised health insurance is taken away receive at least some compensation for their lost benefits. Second, my legislation would allow employees to recover more of the back-pay or other compensation that is owed to them at the time of the bankruptcy. And lastly, it would provide bankruptcy courts the authority to recover company assets in cases where company managers flagrantly paid excessive compensation to favored employees just before declaring bankruptcy.
I first introduced this legislation in the 108th Congress. I am reintroducing
it because this issue is as important in West Virginia today as it has ever been. I am hopeful that as Congress considers any changes to bankruptcy law we will debate how we can better protect workers whose companies file for bankruptcy. I do not pretend to have all the answers. But I do know that we must do a better job of easing the burden that bankruptcy imposes on employees and retirees. And I believe that we can do so in creative ways that do not make it more difficult for companies to successfully reorganize and emerge from bankruptcy. I look forward to the ideas and suggestions of my colleagues.
In the simplest economic terms, employees sell their labor to their companies. They toil away in offices, plants, factories, mills, and mines, because they are promised that at the end of the day they will receive certain compensation. One of the most important types of compensation that workers earn is the right to enjoy certain benefits when they retire. Pensions, life insurance, or health care coverage are earned by workers in addition to their weekly paychecks. Yet, sadly we have seen many companies in the last few years abandon these promises when they declare bankruptcy.
More and more we see companies taking the easy road to profitability by abandoning commitments that they made to workers. For retirees who have planned for their golden years based on the benefits they have earned, losing health insurance can be a devastating blow. Retirees must have the right to reasonable compensation if the company seeks to break its promise to provide health insurance. Under current law, these retirees receive what is called a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits they lost. As any creditor will tell you, a general unsecured claim is essentially worthless in most bankruptcies. It means you are at the end of the line, and there are not enough assets to go around. This law allows companies to essentially rescind compensation that retirees have earned with virtually no cost to the company. Of course that is a great deal for the company, but it is spectacularly unfair to the retirees.
Recognizing that so-called legacy costs are often an impossible burden for a company that is trying to emerge from bankruptcy, my legislation would still allow companies in some circumstances to alter the health coverage offered to retirees. However, it would require that the company pay a minimum level of compensation to retirees. Under this bill, each retiree would be entitled to a payment equal to the cost of purchasing comparable health insurance for a period of 18 months. Of course, 18 months of health insurance coverage is a lot less than many of these retirees are losing, but it can ease the transition as retirees make alternative plans, and it will discourage companies from thinking that terminating retiree health coverage is an easy solution. The retirees would still be entitled to a general unsecured claim for the value of the benefits lost in excess of this one time payment. This change would ensure that retirees, while still not being made whole on lost benefits, will at least receive some compensation for the broken promises.
Many active workers, too, have a difficult time recovering what is owed to them by their employer when the company files bankruptcy. Under current law, employees are entitled to a priority claim of up to $4,925. But that figure is usually not enough to cover the back-wages, vacation time, severance pay, or benefit payments that the employees are owed for work done prior to the bankruptcy. Congress needs to update the amount of the priority claim to ensure that more workers are able to receive what is rightfully theirs. The Bankruptcy Fairness Act would establish a priority claim for the first $15,000 of compensation owed to an employee.
In most cases, employees have been working their hardest to help the company avoid the nightmare of bankruptcy, only to find that they will not be compensated for their services as promised. As we saw so clearly with the Enron case, employees are often left holding the bag when their company declares bankruptcy. In that case, employees were owed an average of $35,000 in back-wages, severance, and other promised compensation. They deserved to recover more than a mere $4,925 of what was owed them. Let me be clear, this bill does not establish any new obligation for a company to pay severance or other compensation to employees caught up in a company's bankruptcy. It merely ensures that employees can recover more of what is already owed to them through the bankruptcy process.
I understand that many creditors or investors are not able to recover what is rightfully owed to them in bankruptcy, but employees deserve protection that recognizes the unique nature of their dependence on their employer. Any smart investor diversifies his or her portfolio so that a bankruptcy at one company does not bankrupt the investor. Likewise, suppliers and creditors that do business with a company typically have many other clients. This is not the case with workers. They cannot diversify away the risk of working for a bankrupt company, and the financial hardship a bankruptcy brings is more devastating to the average worker than the average creditor or supplier.
Now, I know that some of my colleagues listening to this may be worrying that this legislation is insensitive to the needs of companies that are trying to reorganize in order to emerge from bankruptcy and go forward as successful businesses. I am fully aware that sometimes, too often in the real world, the bankruptcy process can help companies stay open and maintain jobs by restructuring obligations to creditors. Too many companies in West Virginia have had to go through the painful process of Chapter 11 reorganization. I completely understand the need to keep the factories open. And I have always worked side by side with companies to help them recover.
I will continue that important work, and I have included a provision in this bill to help bankrupt companies that are struggling to survive to recover assets that have been pilfered from the corporate coffers. In too many cases, company executives reward themselves even as their companies careen toward bankruptcy. The most egregious recent example is at Enron in 2001. In the days and weeks leading up to the bankruptcy filing, executives granted large bonuses to themselves and their favored employees. Millions of dollars were paid to a select group of employees just before the company declared bankruptcy. It is unconscionable that executives would grant themselves undeserved bonuses and then weeks later claim that the company did not have the resources to pay its rank and file employees.
My legislation provides bankruptcy courts greater authority to recover excessive compensation that was paid just prior to the bankruptcy filing. If the court finds that compensation was out of the ordinary course of business or was unjust enrichment, the court can recover those assets for the bankrupt company, ensuring that more creditors, employees, and retirees can receive what is rightfully owed to them by the company.
The reforms I have outlined are modest. They will not take the sting out of bankruptcy. By definition a bankruptcy is a failure, and it is painful for the company's employees, retirees, and business partners. But the Bankruptcy Fairness Act I am introducing today would make progress toward ensuring that bankruptcies are more fair to the workers who gave their time and energy and sweat to the company in exchange for certain promised compensation. And by helping a company recover assets that should not have been paid out as undeserved bonuses just before bankruptcy the bill ensures that more of a company's assets are paid to the employees, retirees, and creditors who are rightfully owed.
It is my hope that this legislation will receive serious consideration from my colleagues, and that this can open an important debate about how workers and retirees can be better protected from the ugly side of prolonged economic downturns. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today makes clear that we have now spent $284 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war began. The money that has been…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill before us today makes clear that we have now spent $284 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan since the war began. The money that has been spent in Afghanistan is certainly legitimate and justified. After all, that country harbored the people who attacked us on 9/11. The problem is, however, that $165 billion has now been spent to deal with a country that did not attack us. We have spent some $240 billion on this entire endeavor since the President first landed in his jumpsuit on that carrier and addressed the country under the banner ``Mission Accomplished.'' There has been quite a bit of that mission left since it supposedly was over. We have now been involved in Iraq longer than we were involved in World War I, and respectable and responsible experts have told me that they expect that we will be involved for at least another 5 years.
This whole operation has been brought to us by the same people who erroneously told us that we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and it was implied that they had, or were close to having, nuclear capability. That was all demonstrated not to be true. This has been brought to us by the same people who believed the assertions that our troops would be welcomed with open arms. It has been brought to us by the same people who thought they were so smart that they knew more than General Shinseki when the good general warned us that we would need substantially more troops and boots on the ground than we were scheduled to have if the postwar occupation was to go well.
And it has been brought to us by the same people who provided to our troops insufficient armor for Humvees, insufficient body armor and insufficient jammers to prevent our troops from having their faces and their legs and their arms blown off by remotely detonated bombs and mines.
I want to make quite clear I will support this bill because I feel that I have no choice but to participate in cleaning up the mess which somebody else left. But I do not relish it. I believe that the entire operation in Iraq has been accompanied by incredibly naive romanticism on the part of the White House and on the part of the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, and that has left the people fighting the war to bear the brunt of the miscalculations that have been made by the civilian leadership of our government. We have lost the lives of 1,500 American service men and women. We have seen more than 11,000 be injured. And this bill understates, in my view, the amount of money that will be needed eventually to restore the readiness of the U.S. Armed Forces and to minimize their casualties.
The second thing this bill does is to demonstrate once again how we, on both sides of the aisle, have had to work doubly hard to overcome the resistance of the White House in adequately funding homeland security operations. They have been especially resistant to providing the adequate funding along the borders, especially the Canadian border. And it has taken a bipartisan effort on the part of a wide variety of people in this Congress in order to overcome that resistance. This bill falls far short of the funding that is necessary to provide a secure set of borders for the United States. The new bill that is going to be offered by the gentleman from Kentucky will help fill that gap, but that is forced to play catch-up because we have met a steady resistance effort on the part of the White House.
Lastly, I simply want to say that while I am certainly no expert on the subject, I note that there is being attached to this bill a provision which many experts in the field feel has the potential to construct a nationwide database that could be very harmful in terms of people's efforts to engage in identity theft. I hope that proves not to be the case.
I would simply make the point that certainly no one on our committee on either side of the aisle has the expertise that you would hope would be found in the authorization committees, and I wish that that provision had been dealt with on a separate bill rather than solving an internal problem within the Republican Caucus by having it attached to an unrelated bill, and I want to make one point about that.
We are being lectured almost daily by the majority that we should not add ungermane riders to appropriation bills. I want to serve notice that if the majority feels free to add unrelated authorization bills such as this to a must-pass bill, that then I feel fully within my rights in offering whatever authorization legislation we feel appropriate on this side of the aisle and asking that it be attached to appropriation bills. If sauce is going to be okay for the goose, then it ought to be good for the gander.
So we will see in the coming months what the attitude of the majority is when we seek to add what we feel are legitimate efforts to strengthen appropriation bills by adding various pieces of so-called legislation to appropriation bills.
So since the majority has chosen to proceed down that path, I hope they raise no objection when we seek to follow it. With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat I intend to vote for this bill with all of my misgivings.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee, the gentleman who has long been trying to extend debate in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), distinguished minority whip.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time each side has remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller.)
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I take this time to explain the motion to recommit that I will offer at the end of this debate. Here is what it does:
The Senate bill contains funding for a total of 150,000 border patrol agents, 250 immigration investigators, and 168 immigration enforcement agents, and detention officers and their associated training and support cast.
This conference agreement falls short of the Senate bill in 3 areas. It only contains funds for 500 border patrol agents, not the 150,000 called for in the Senate bill. It only contains funding for 50 immigration investigators, not the 250 called for in the Senate bill.
Last, it also contains no funding for unmanned border aerial vehicles.
The motion to recommit is simple. It would take us to the levels contained in the Senate bill for border patrol agents by adding funding for 550 additional border patrol agents and for 200 immigration investigators.
It would also fund unmanned border aerial vehicles that have been used successfully in a test in Arizona to assist in surveillance. Former DHS Deputy Secretary Lloyd testified that the vehicles provided ``invaluable'' service.
Since border patrol agents are trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Artesia, New Mexico, funding is included like the Senate bill to purchase and operate modular classrooms for these additional agents.
This motion, in short, would provide an additional $284.4 million to immigration and customs enforcement to do this as was in the Senate bill. Need I remind anyone that the Intelligence Reform Bill, which became law last December, called for 2,000 additional border patrol agents a year and 800 additional immigration investigators? The President requested no funding for that supplemental request.
I would note that on March 30 the administration announced it would add more than 500 agents in Arizona, but those are not new agents. 135 of them or so will come from other southwest and southern border patrol locations, and the remainder are simply new trainees who will replace agents retiring or leaving the border patrol across the country.
So I would simply urge House Members to vote for this motion. It ought not be at all controversial. It is practical if you want to put your money where your press releases have been with respect to border patrol.
Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, in this form, I am.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Show 8 more
Mr. Speaker, I rise sadly to oppose the emergency supplemental because of the horrific and ill-advised immigration provisions and the lack of oversight that has been given to the provisions in this…
Mr. Speaker, I rise sadly to oppose the emergency supplemental because of the horrific and ill-advised immigration provisions and the lack of oversight that has been given to the provisions in this section. I hope we will have an opportunity to address this in a comprehensive manner.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today very conflicted over a piece of vital legislation for which this entire body should really be in solidarity. The Conference Report on H.R. 1268 provides for emergency FY2005 funds for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, tsunami relief efforts, foreign assistance programs and domestic homeland security priorities. However, this legislation also includes an insidious section with provisions of H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act, which has nothing to do with what should be the real intent of this Emergency Supplemental. Instead of being united on issues of national security and international relations, we are put in a divisive situation with the provisions of the REAL ID Act.
The issues of importance addressed by this Emergency Supplemental do not give rise to a need to include provisions from H.R. 418, the REAL ID Act--legislation for which Congress
has not held a legislative hearing, markup, nor full debate in the House. Just last year, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle attempted to force these provisions in the context of the 9/11 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, H.R. 10.
The sponsor of the REAL ID Act's driver's license provisions would have gone far beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. The 9/11 Commission did not suggest that the standards should be federally mandated without state participation, that a database should be created to share personal identification information, that undocumented immigrants should be prevented from getting licenses or that non-citizens should get an identifiably different driver's license.
Finally, none of the REAL ID Act sponsor's provisions have been reviewed by the Congress or the Commission. There have been no hearings or debates on these significant changes to existing law. The immigration provisions that have been forced into this supplemental include numerous provisions restricting the grant of asylum `` protection, imposing onerous new driver's license requirements on the States, making it easier to deport legal immigrants, waiving all Federal laws concerning the construction of fences and barriers anywhere within the United States, and denying immigrants long-standing habeas corpus rights.
The USA PATRIOT Act, for which we in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the Judiciary are only now holding hearings in piecemeal form, already barred terrorists from receiving asylum protection in the United States. None of the people associated with recent attacks, or plans for terrorist attacks in the U.S., were here under grants of asylum. Instead, these changes will make it harder for people legitimately fleeing persecution to prove their asylum claims and gain protection here. Bona fide refugees who cannot meet the higher standards will be returned to countries where they were persecuted, possibly to face terror, torture and death.
The forced provisions will set a dangerous legal precedent by requiring the government to waive all federal, state and local laws to build barriers and fences to deter illegal entry into the United States. This waiver would require violating laws that protect sacred Native American burial sites, important environmental regions, and the wages of laborers. Yet this policy is unnecessary. In the 9-11 Act, we passed language to develop and implement a comprehensive plan for the systematic surveillance of the Southwest border by remotely piloted aircraft and other electronic means. We can preserve our legal rights and regimes and still secure our Nation.
The great majority of this Emergency Supplemental, a sum of $75.9 billion goes towards U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In this Conference Report's military spending total of $75.9 billion includes $37.1 billion for military operations and maintenance spending, $17.4 billion for personnel, and $17.4 billion for new weapons procurement. I am very pleased to say that this Conference Report increases the military death gratuity to $100,000, from $12,420, and increases subsidized life insurance benefits to $400,000, from $250,000, for families of soldiers who died or were killed while on active duty beginning from Oct. 7, 2001. I can not describe how fundamental it is that we take care of our armed forces and their loved ones. This Conference Report addresses some of the concerns that Democrats have had about the fact that the families of soldiers who were killed while on active duty were not being given the necessary funds to provide for themselves. In addition, this Conference Report provides $308 million more than requested for add-on vehicle armor kits; large increases for new trucks; added funds for night-vision equipment; and $60 million in unrequested funds for radio jammers to disrupt attempts by Iraqi insurgents to explode remote-control bombs and mines. As with the increase in death benefits, Democrats in this body have been advocating for increased funds to provide the necessary armor and equipment to protect our troops. While I am supportive of our troops and their families, I am disappointed that this war continues with no end in sight. How long will it be before our brave men and women of the Armed Forces can come home and embrace their families? This is the question Democrats have been asking for months and we still don't have a real answer. Again, while I support funding our soldiers and their families to ensure that their safety and financial needs are met, I am deeply disappointed that we still do not have a proper exit strategy in Iraq.
As I stated there are many provisions of this Emergency Supplemental in which this body can be united in agreement. One such issue is the tsunami relief provided in this Emergency Supplemental. The Conference Report before us today appropriates $907 million in direct assistance for tsunami disaster relief for countries affected by the Dec. 26, 2004, earthquake and tsunami. In addition, this measure also provides $226 million to reimburse the U.S. military for expenses incurred in providing emergency relief to the tsunami victims, and $25 million to build and deploy 35 new tsunami-detection buoys in the Pacific, Atlantic, the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico to provide warning to communities of approaching tsunamis. I had the opportunity to see the damage caused by the tsunami when I visited Sri Lanka with my colleagues led by Mr. Crowley shortly after the tsunami disaster. I had the opportunity to visit with USAID personnel who were there trying to aid the Sri Lankan people in rebuilding their Nation. I have to say the attitude of our American personel and the smiles they brought to the face of the Sri Lankan people would make every member of this Congress very proud. We talk about public diplomacy with the international world and I firmly believe that the funds appropriated here along with the work of our personnel on the ground help make a great case for the goodness of our Nation.
I am also similarly pleased that about $400 million in this Conference Report will go towards humanitarian assistance in Darfur, Sudan. I recently had the opportunity to visit refugee camps in neighboring Chad where thousands of Sudanese in Darfur have fled to escape the conflict. Needless to say, I was able to confirm from eyewitness accounts that the conflict in Darfur is indeed even more shocking and deeply disturbing in its viciousness than has been reported to us. We as a Nation must stand against such brutality and the funds in this Emergency Supplemental will help to ease the suffering of those involved in this conflict. In addition, this Conference Report includes $920 million for all peacekeeping programs, many of which are in Sudan. However, while I have always been a strong advocate for peacekeeping operations, I am disappointed that the total money appropriated is $70 million less than the president's request. We must continue to support such operations because the alternative can only be to the detriment of the international community, including our own Nation.
Again, I am in general support of the goals proposed by H.R. 1268, but I am troubled by the implications of the Supplemental Appropriations measure that this body is poised to pass that relate to immigration policy. The underlying legislation proposes to fund important needs that pertain to Operation Iraqi Freedom; Operation Enduring Freedom, in Afghanistan; Army and Marine Corps restructuring; recapitalization and replacement of equipment; and replenishment of cash balances in certain working capital funds. In truth, this Emergency Supplemental funds many needed priorities, but it is the one issue of the REAL ID Act, which is not a priority, that poisons this legislation.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a number of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid and the Medically Underserved Act of 2005, which Senator Smith and Senator…
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with a number of my colleagues in cosponsoring the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid and the Medically Underserved Act of 2005, which Senator Smith and Senator Bingaman are introducing today.
The Medicaid program provides essential medical services to low- income and uninsured children and their families, pregnant women, senior citizens, individuals with disabilities, and others. Last year, nearly 55 million Americans were enrolled in Medicaid, including more than 300,000 in Maine where one in five people now receive health care services through MaineCare, our State's Medicaid program.
Individuals who rely upon Medicaid-funded health services have no other option. Without Medicaid, they would join the ever growing ranks of the uninsured in this country, which now numbers an all-time high of more than 45 million Americans who lacked health coverage at some point last year. These two groups represent a total of 100 million Americans who would have no health insurance were it not for Medicaid coverage which reaches just over half of them. And to the extent that the Federal Government reduces its support for Medicaid funding, the numbers of uninsured Americans will rise at an even faster rate.
As Congress begins to consider the administration's Fiscal Year 2006 Budget, I believe we must take a balanced approach that is both fiscally responsible and reflects our long-standing commitments to provide health care for many of the low-income and uninsured through the Medicaid program. Although we face growing budget deficits and ever tightening Federal budgets, the Federal Government cannot simply abandon its responsibility to help states provide health care access to our most vulnerable citizens.
Today, Medicaid is the fastest growing component of State budgets, according to the most recent survey of the National Governors Association. Total Medicaid spending nationwide now averages 22 percent of State budgets, while State spending on all healthcare functions is approximately 31 percent. However, although its costs are increasing, the annual growth in Medicaid spending on a per capita basis is growing more slowly, at 4.5 percent a year, than the private sector where health insurance premiums have increased an average of 12.5 percent a year for the last 3 years.
The economic downturn which State economies experienced several years ago, and from which many States are only now emerging, has continued to leave many families jobless and without health insurance, forcing them to turn to Medicaid. This has put an enormous strain on the states already strapped with budget scarcities. Many States reduced Medicaid benefits last year and even more restricted Medicaid eligibility in an effort to satisfy their budgetary obligations.
In fact, the Chairman of the National Governors Association, Governor Warner of Virginia, and the Vice Chairman, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, recently warned Congress that if Federal spending for Medicaid were capped and the number of Medicaid recipients increased sharply, States would face dire fiscal consequences. According to the Governors, total costs for State Medicaid programs are growing at an annual rate of 12 percent, and total Medicaid expenditures now exceed that of Medicare, due primarily to factors beyond States' control, especially the costs of long-term care: Medicaid now accounts for 50 percent of all State long-term care spending and pays for the care of 70 percent of those in nursing homes.
At this time, therefore, it is crucial that we continue to provide sufficient Federal funding for Medicaid, which has worked so well since it began providing care for some of our most vulnerable populations 40 years ago. We must proceed cautiously before making any significant changes in the program, and the Medicaid Commission established by this bill will ensure that necessary deliberative approach.
The concept of a commission to undertake a comprehensive review of the Medicaid program and recommend possible changes is similar to the commission which Congress established in the late 1990s, the Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare. That commission examined various aspects of
the Medicare program to determine areas that should be modernized and later recommended a number of changes, including a prescription drug benefit. Those recommendations initiated the process of congressional debate and consideration of reforming the Medicare program, culminating in the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which passed in 2003 and, among other reforms, included the new prescription drug benefit for seniors which will take effect next year.
The new Medicare prescription drug benefit will have a major impact on Medicaid since it will shift Federal expenditures for drug benefits currently provided by Medicaid for the ``dual eligible'' population-- those who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare--to Medicare. However, this will not lift most of the financial responsibility and burden of prescription drug costs from the States. Recent estimates by the National Governors Association show that currently 42 percent of all Medicaid dollars are spent on ``dual eligible'' Medicare beneficiaries, although they comprise only a small percentage of Medicaid cases, and they are covered by Medicare for other services.
The new prescription drug program includes a provision known as the ``claw-back'' which will require States to remit funds to the Federal Government, based on their inflation-adjusted 2003 per person Medicaid expenditures for prescription drugs for these beneficiaries. Although the percentage share of drug costs that States must pay for the dual eligibles will decline over time, from 90 percent to 75 percent, States will continue to pay the lion's share of dual eligibles' prescription drug costs. Many States are just now recognizing this fact and are looking for ways to accommodate these ongoing costs.
Unanswered questions like these remain concerning the ultimate impact of the Medicare drug program on State budgets and Medicaid programs. One of the primary duties of the Medicaid Commission would be to review and make recommendations on the interaction of Medicaid with Medicare and other Federal health programs.
Moreover, the formula for calculating the Federal matching rate, known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, FMAP, which determines the Federal Government's share of a State's expenditures for Medicaid each year, has also contributed to the Medicaid problems that States are facing. The FMAP formula is designed so that the Federal Government pays a larger portion of Medicaid costs in States with a per capita income lower than the national average. However, the formula looks back 3 years, to points in time that are not necessarily reflective of a State's current financial situation.
In fiscal year 2003, for example, the FMAP for that year was calculated in 2001 for the fiscal year beginning October 2002. The FMAP for FY 2003 was determined on the basis of State per capita income over the 3-year period of 1998 through 2000, when State economies were growing significantly. Yet in 2003, when this matching rate was in effect, a serious economic downturn was affecting many State budgets, and that downturn has contributed greatly to the growth of Medicaid for several years now.
We recognized this situation in the last Congress and provided for State fiscal relief by providing a temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid matching rate, which provided $10 billion in fiscal relief to States during fiscal 2003 and 2004, when we passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. But that fiscal relief has sunset.
One of the duties of the Medicaid Commission would be to make recommendations on how to make Federal matching payments more equitable with respect to the States and the populations they serve, as well as how to make them more responsive to changes in States' economic conditions.
The fact is, Medicaid and Medicare have complex responsibilities, financing, and interrelationships and that is why a Medicaid Commission is vital for the future state budgets and the Medicaid program as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to join us supporting this legislation to help sustain and improve this critical health care safety net for our most vulnerable Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations for his leadership for his very important motion…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), our distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations for his leadership for his very important motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into talking about the bill, I want to commend both the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and our distinguished ranking members on the Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Defense. Over the years, they have worked very hard and provided great leadership for our men and women in uniform and for the security of our country.
There is much about this bill that I support. I have some concerns which I will express but none of that diminishes the regard and appreciation I have for the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time since the President ordered the invasion of Iraq 2 years ago, Congress has been asked to provide funds for the war outside the regular budget. With nearly 140,000 troops in dire need of equipment and supplies, this legislation will be overwhelmingly approved and I will support it.
A willingness to provide our troops the support they need, however, should not be mistaken for support for the repeated failures in judgment that first put our troops in harm's way and that keeps them there today.
Two years ago this week on May 1, 2003, President Bush stood on an aircraft carrier under a banner that proclaimed ``Mission Accomplished.'' Considering the events that followed and what has been disclosed since then, if the President were to stand under a
banner today it would have to read ``Credibility Demolished.''
We are in the war's third year. Daily headlines are grim reminders of how far we are from a stable and secure Iraq, and the President has yet to provide a plan to get us to that place. We are fast approaching sadly 1,600 U.S. military deaths and thousands of more have suffered grievous and lasting wounds.
I have had the privilege to pay my respects to troops in theater and in hospitals in Europe and in the United States. Whatever our disagreement about the policy which brought us into the war, whatever our disagreement on the lack of planning to end it, it never diminishes the regard that we have for our men and women in uniform. We respect them and we appreciate their courage, their patriotism and the sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. And on any opportunity that many of us have, we express that to them personally.
The President's rationale for the invasion was discredited long ago. Iraq remains unsafe. I talked about credibility in terms of the lack of planning. There is also a lack of credibility in budgeting. Although appropriations for Iraq approaches $200 billion, the President's budget requests no money for the war on the grounds that the cost is unknowable. Instead, the President chooses to include a figure for the war's cost, zero, that everyone knows to be wrong.
Here we are today on Thursday talking about a supplemental with a set amount in it of emergency funding for our troops, and we passed the budget last Thursday. It was not one week ago we did not know what the cost would be and now we do this week.
This is simply not an honest way to do our budgeting.
Our troops need relief and their equipment needs repair and replacement. The risk assessment released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff this week shows the strain on our military is real and unsustainable. And it is clear that the figure in the supplemental is really not enough to meet to meet the measure that the chairman mentioned.
Providing money alone as this bill will do is not enough. A way out must be provided as well. We must focus on quality rather than quantity when training Iraqi security forces, accelerate Iraq's reconstruction in ways that give Iraqis a major stake in rebuilding their country, and step up regional diplomatic efforts to heal the strife on which the insurgency thrives.
I was pleased to be part of the bipartisan delegation that visited Iraq during Holy Week, and I can tell you that firsthand that we have a long way to go to reaching those goals.
Our experience in Iraq strongly suggest that if we do not take these steps and soon, about training the security forces, accelerating Iraq's reconstruction, and stepping up regional diplomacy or as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) would say, Iraq-atize, internationalize and energize, if we do not do this and soon, Americans may wonder for years to come if the end will ever be in sight.
The funds provided for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, for the relief of those devastated by the tsunami, to aid those suffering in Darfur and elsewhere, and to promote Middle East peace are necessary and important.
Were conferees able to focus solely on these issues, their final product would have been much stronger. However, since this bill is must-pass legislation, House Republicans demanded the inclusion of controversial immigration provisions. These provisions would be much better considered as part of a comprehensive immigration reform effort. These provisions will make asylum harder to obtain for those seeking a haven from persecution and place a huge unfunded responsibility on the States to verify information used to support a driver's license application.
This is an unfunded mandate. This is an unfunded mandate and it is not part of the Contract With America, no unfunded mandates.
Since this is a conference report, we cannot have a ruling from the Chair that will allow us to discuss some specifics about the unfunded mandate, the driver's license application that is in the bill. It sounds like a good idea. But if you are at the desk at the Department of Motor Vehicles and you have now become an immigration officer because you have to prove the citizenship, or at least the legality of somebody being in the country, it is a big burden, it is costly, and it is unfunded.
We have given a mandate without the money and really without the consideration that this provision should have been given.
In addition, we unwisely vest in the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to weigh Federal and State environmental and labor laws. This in the name of securing our borders. Securing our borders should be a national priority, which makes it all the more inexplicable that the President did not request in his budget the extra border patrol agents and detention beds authorized by Congress last year in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Bipartisan efforts in the Senate do more for border security in this bill and were rebuffed by House Republicans in favor of provisions that trample on the rights of individuals and States, and may result in the diminishment of the safety of the American people.
I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for offering his motion to recommit to fund border security at the Senate levels. He also had this as a motion to instruct when the conferees were named, to add $1 billion so that we could have the border security that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. But that was rejected.
So we talk a great deal about securing the border, but we are not putting the resources there to do the job. Thank heavens Senator Byrd prevailed with part of the money in the Senate. We can do more. We should have done more. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been a champion on this issue year in and year out as far as this discussion has been going.
Again, border security, border security, border security, and then we can talk about a comprehensive immigration policy.
I hope that all of our colleagues will give an overwhelming support of this body to the Obey motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, for many reasons, this is not an easy bill to support. The legitimate emergency needs to which it responds, particularly the needs of our men and women in uniform overseas, are real and must be addressed.
A much better job, though, must be done to create conditions to allow large numbers of them to come home and to come home soon.
Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman from Wisconsin's motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to…
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 258, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1268) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, and for other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to bring to the House for its consideration the conference report on H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief.
The conference agreement includes a total of $82 billion. The vast majority of these funds are to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. For that reason, it is critical that we move this package quickly. It also provides needed assistance to the victims of the tsunami.
During our conference with the Senate, Chairman Cochran and I agreed that the final agreement should come in at or below the President's request and relatively free of extraneous items. The conference report before you has met both of these very critical parameters. We did our very best to keep the package clean, and by and large, we were successful with that. We have funded our foreign policy priorities while still preserving congressional prerogatives where appropriate.
With that said, the conference report provides a total of $75.9 billion for defense-related expenditures, roughly $921 million over the President's request. The additions over the request are for force protection, and increasing the survivability of troops in the field. In addition to the defense-related spending, the conference report provides a reduction of $1.5 billion in foreign assistance from the President's request. The conference agreement also includes $635 million for increased border security enforcement. This includes 500 additional border patrol agents and increased detention space.
We have also included $656 million for tsunami disaster relief. Finally, the bill includes much of the REAL ID Act of 2005, which was included in the House-passed version of the bill. The provisions on asylum, border infrastructure, and driver's license standards are included. Each of these provisions will greatly enhance the security of our borders. All of these provisions reflect agreements negotiated by relevant authorizing committees. I especially want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner, Chairman Davis and their staffs for getting this measure before the Congress in a timely fashion.
I urge my colleagues to support this much needed support for our troops.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH05MY05.008
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), my colleague on the committee.
(Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for one of the most illuminating, but also one of the longest, statements I have ever heard him make on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the greatest subcommittee in the appropriations process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to our majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a great member of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as I express my deep appreciation for his cooperation in this project.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that while I very strongly oppose my colleague from Wisconsin's motion to recommit, the gentleman was kind enough to share the recommittal motion with us before the fact, and I am very much appreciative of that.
The greatest difficulty I have with the motion is that at this moment our forces are on gas fumes, rather than real gasoline. It is very, very critical that we get this bill moving towards the President's desk and to the troops as quickly as possible.
I would like to speak for a moment about some of those things that the bill does that may be of great interest to the Members who are concerned especially about border security.
Within this package there are some 500 border patrol agents, added as a result of this measure as it goes to the President's desk. There are 218 immigration enforcement agents and criminal investigators. There are some 1,950 detention beds. The bill is designed to take every step that we possibly can on short order to secure our border.
At the same time, just yesterday the Subcommittee on Homeland Security marked up their 2006 bill to move further down this same pathway. We are moving very quickly to strengthen and secure our borders by way of this legislation, as well as regular order.
From there, Mr. Speaker, let me express my deepest appreciation to Members on both sides of the aisle who have worked very hard, their staffs, as well as the Members themselves, to make sure that this supplemental would arrive on time and ahead of schedule. Virtually nobody thought we would be here at this moment. The reason we are is because the Members recognize
how critical it is that we get this support to our troops immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleagues' patience as we work quickly on this bill. It is a very good bill. I urge my colleagues' support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act. Earned income tax credit, EITC, benefits intended for working families are significantly reduced by the use of refund…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act. Earned income tax credit, EITC, benefits intended for working families are significantly reduced by the use of refund anticipation loans, RALs, which typically carry triple digit interest rates.
According to the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.9 billion intended to assist low-income families was received by commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks to pay for tax assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans in 2002. Fifty-seven percent of consumers who received RALs in 2003 earned the EITC. The Children's Defense Fund recently conducted a review of EITC refunds in eight states and the District of Columbia. In Texas, it is estimated that EITC families lost an estimated $251 million in tax preparation fees and high interest loans. EITC families had an estimated $82.6 million diverted to tax preparers in Ohio.
The interest rates and fees charged on RALs are not justified because of the short length of time that these loans are outstanding and the minimal risk they present. These loans carry little risk because of the Debt Indicator program.
The Debt Indicator, DI, is a service provided by the Internal Revenue Service, IRS, that informs the lender whether or not an applicant owes Federal or state taxes, child support, student loans, or other Government obligations, which assists the tax preparer in ascertaining the applicant's ability to obtain their full refund so that the RAL is repaid. The Department of the Treasury should not be facilitating these predatory loans that allow tax preparers to reap outrageous profits by exploiting working families.
Unfortunately too many working families are susceptible to predatory lending because they are left out of the financial mainstream. Between 25 and 56 million adults are unbanked, or not using mainstream, insured financial institutions. The unbanked rely on alternative financial service providers to obtain cash from checks, pay bills, send remittances, utilize payday loans, and obtain credit. Many of the unbanked are low- and moderate-income families that can ill afford to have their earnings unnecessarily diminished by their reliance on these high-cost and often predatory financial services. In addition, the unbanked are unable to save securely to prepare for the loss of a job, a family illness, a down payment on a first home, or education expenses.
My bill will protect consumers against predatory loans, reduce the involvement of the Department of the Treasury in facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers, and expand access to opportunities for saving and lending at mainstream financial services.
My bill prohibits refund anticipation loans that utilize EITC benefits. Other Federal benefits, such as Social Security, have similar restrictions to ensure that the beneficiaries receive the intended benefit.
My bill also limits several of the objectionable practices of RAL providers. It will prohibit lenders from using tax refunds to collect outstanding obligations for previous RALs. In addition, mandatory arbitration clauses for RALs that utilize Federal tax refunds would be prohibited to ensure that consumers have the ability to take future legal action if necessary.
I am deeply troubled that the Department of the Treasury plays such a prominent role in the facilitation and subsequent promotion of refund anticipation loans. In 1995, the use of the DI was suspended because of massive fraud in e-filed returns with RALs. After the program was discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the DI was reinstated in 1999, according to H&R Block, to ``assist with screening for electronic filing fraud and is also expected to substantially reduce refund anticipation loan pricing.'' Although RAL prices were expected to go down as a result of the reinstatement of the DI, this has not occurred. Use of the Debt Indicator should once again be stopped. The DI is helping tax preparers make excessive profits from low- and moderate-income taxpayers who utilize RALs. The IRS should not be aiding efforts that take the earned benefit away from low-income families and allow unscrupulous preparers to take advantage of low- income taxpayers. My bill terminates the DI program. In addition, this bill removes the incentive to meet congressionally mandated electronic filing goals by facilitating the exploitation of taxpayers. My bill would exclude any electronically filed tax returns resulting in tax refunds distributed by refund anticipation loans from being counted towards the goal established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which is to have at least 80 percent of all returns filed electronically by 2007.
Mr. President, my bill also expands access to mainstream financial services. Electronic Transfer Accounts, ETA, are low-cost accounts at banks and credit unions intended for recipients of certain Federal benefit payments. Currently, ETAs are provided for recipients of other Federal benefits such as Social Security payments. My bill expands the eligibility for ETAs to include EITC benefits. These accounts will allow taxpayers to receive direct deposit refunds into an account without the need for a refund anticipation loan.
Furthermore, my bill would mandate that low- and moderate-income taxpayers be provided opportunities to open low-cost accounts at federally insured banks or credit unions via appropriate tax forms. Providing taxpayers with the option of opening a bank or credit union account through the use of tax forms provides an alternative to RALs and immediate access to financial opportunities found at banks and credit unions.
I thank my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Sarbanes, Dayton, and Durbin for cosponsoring this legislation. I also thank Representative Jan Schakowsky for introducing the companion legislation in the other body.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Taxpayer Abuse Prevention Act, support letters and an accompanying fact sheet from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform, the Children's Defense Fund, the Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the National Consumer Law Center, the Center for Responsible Lending, and the text of the national summary of the refund anticipation studies done by the Children's Defense Fund be printed in the Record.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will restrict predatory RALs and expand access to mainstream financial services.
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this legislation in March, it voted 420-2 to approve an amendment, which I authored, which reaffirms the U.S. commitment under the Convention Against Torture to…
Mr. Speaker, when the House debated this legislation in March, it voted 420-2 to approve an amendment, which I authored, which reaffirms the U.S. commitment under the Convention Against Torture to not engage in torture, and to not render or transfer people to countries where they are likely to face torture. The U.S. signed this treaty under President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994.
Despite our commitments under this treaty and the recent statements made by the Bush Administration emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the use of torture, there have been repeated reports in the press indicating that the U.S. has been sending detainees to countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries who have become notorious for their human rights violations.
The practice of extraordinary rendition is shrouded in secrecy. An unmarked plane arrives in the middle of the night carrying men wearing plain clothes and black hoods, to take custody of the prisoners, cut off their clothes, drug them on the spot, shackle them, and fly off into the night. President Bush signed a secret directive reported to speed up the process by eliminating the case by case evaluation. And while unofficial estimates put the number of renditions since 9/11 to be between 100 and 150, the actual number of renditions remains a secret.
The Administration maintains that it is in full compliance with the Convention Against Torture. Compliance, they say, is guaranteed by the dubious practice of asking countries known to torture prisoners for ``promises'' that they will not torture our prisoners. These so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' then provide the cover for sending a suspect to that country to undergo interrogation.
The list of countries where the detainees have been rendered includes Syria, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
So here is the sand on which the Administration stands--at the same time that we exhort the international community to isolate Syria for thumbing its nose at U.N. resolutions to get out of Lebanon, the United States has apparently been willing to accept Syrian promises that it will comply with the Convention Against Torture.
Here is what the State Department's annual human rights report says about Syria's methods of interrogation: ``administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, . . .'' And the list goes on.
How about Uzbekistan?--``suffocation, electric shock, rape, beatings, and boiling prisoners to death . . .'' And the list goes on.
The so-called ``diplomatic assurances'' that we have received from the torturers that they will not torture those we send them are not credible, and the Administration knows it. CIA Director Porter Goss basically acknowledged as much when he stated: ``But of course once they're out of our control, there's only so much we can do.'' Attorney General Alberto Gonzales confirmed this, when he said ``Once someone is rendered, we can't fully control what that country might do.''
Section 1031 of the conference report would prohibit the use of any funds included in this Supplemental appropriations bill to subject any person in custody or under the control of the United States to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. While the Conferees approved Senate language that is slightly different from that of the House-passed amendment, I am nevertheless supportive of this language. I support it because I read Section 1031 to clearly prohibit any appropriated funds from being spent to subject any person in U.S. custody or control to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by transferring, extraditing, or rendering such persons to countries where they are likely to face torture.
This is because such actions clearly would be prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, a treaty signed and ratified by the United States. Article 3 of the Convention clearly states that:
``No State Party shall expel, return (``refouler'') or
extradite a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger
of being subjected to torture.''
Article 3 of the Convention further states that:
``For the purpose of determining whether there are such
grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account
all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the
existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights.''
It would be my expectation that the funding limitation contained in Section 1031 would therefore prohibit funds from being used to transfer persons to any Nation where the person was likely to face torture, and that under Section 1031, funds could not be used for transfers or renditions in situations where the U.S. government had found there to be a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights. I would also note that in a September 2004 report to the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture expressed concern that reliance on diplomatic assurances is a ``practice that is increasingly undermining the principle of non- refoulement'' and observed that where torture is systematic, ``the principal of non-refoulement must be strictly observed and diplomatic assurances should not be resorted to.''
We take pride that even as our Nation fought for its survival against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire during World War II, that we did not ask our ``Greatest Generation'' to engage in torture or other war crimes. The legacy of the U.S. then, and now as we prosecute the War on Terror, is that we uphold our commitment to justice--even in the face of shadows of terror and war. The test of a Nation is found as much in how it wages war as in how it promotes the values of peace and democracy. That is what we must do today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1268 and urge all my colleagues to support it. In addition to necessary funding for our troops, tsunami disaster relief,…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Conference Report on H.R. 1268 and urge all my colleagues to support it.
In addition to necessary funding for our troops, tsunami disaster relief, and border security; this conference report also includes important provisions to bring long-overdue, common sense reform to drivers' licenses and state-issued identification cards, authored last year by the Government Reform Committee in response to a recommendation of the 9-11 Commission.
Mr. Speaker, I want to especially thank the Speaker and Majority Leader for making good on their promise to get this legislation to the floor signed into law quickly in the 109th Congress. I also want to thank my colleague from California, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for his strong support and for agreeing to include these provisions in H.R, 1268. Finally, I would like to thank my colleague from Wisconsin for his tireless work and support on this issue, Last year following passage of the 9-11 Commission Recommendations Implementation Act, he and I made a commitment to work together to ensure that the most important provisions not addressed in the final bill would be addressed early in the 109th Congress. That commitment is being fulfilled today.
Judging by the basic nature of these requirements as well as the actions taken by some States, it is quite obvious that not enacting these reforms does not come from a lack of ability, but from a lack of will. The federal government cannot continue to allow our security responsibilities to be compromised by the inaction of a few.
Our approach is very straightforward. Building upon guidelines and best practices established and accepted by State Motor Vehicle Administrators, the federal government's long-standing work on identity security, and actions taken by individual States to shore up their licensing process following the terrorist attacks; our legislation sets forth minimum document and issuance standards for federal acceptance of driver's licenses and state-issued personal identification cards. The legislation provides three years for States to come into compliance with these standards in order for the federal government to recognize their documents as proof of an individual's identity.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. States that want their drivers' licenses to be used for federal identification purposes will be required to meet these standards. All of them. If they do not, the citizens of that State will not be able to use their driver's license to identify themselves for many purposes that they use them for today, such as boarding an airplane. The bill and the report make clear that the Secretary must determine the uses, in addition to those set forth in the bill, for which drivers licenses only from complying states will be accepted. Importantly, the final bill makes clear that the Secretary of Homeland Security will be responsible for ensuring that the certifications represent full compliance. This requirement ensures that the national security interests of the United States will be protected through enforcement of the requirements of the bill.
States will also be required to confirm the applicant's proof of legal presence in the United States. Currently, only 11 states lack such a requirement, meaning a majority of states have already recognized the need for tighter standards, but unnecessary and dangerous gaps in the system still exist. Importantly, States are still permitted to issue drivers' licenses to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States or who cannot provide satisfactory proof of identity. The ability of States to have such a system is currently under challenge in court, and this legislation will provide them with express authority. The bill further provides that these licenses or identification cards must be clearly visually differentiated from other licenses and contain specific language regarding their validity for federal identification and other official purposes.
In addition, the legislation will require identity documents to expire at the same time as the expiration of lawful entry status--this will prevent individuals who have illegally entered or are unlawfully present in the United States from having valid identification documents. This loophole was highlighted on September 11th, as Nawaf al Hazmi and Hani Hanjour, the pilots of Flight 77, both obtained licenses and identification cards after the expiration of their visa authorization. We must correct this dangerous problem before we again give individuals who have overstayed their visas the tools they need to integrate into society and carry out criminal and terrorist acts.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that these actions are consistent with actions taken
by individual states to date. For example, Nevada and New Mexico do not accept, as proof of identity, a state-issued driver license or identification card from states that do not meet their own standards. The federal government has been delinquent in dealing with this issue, but we are correcting that problem today.
Fraud in identity documents is no longer just a problem of theft. As we continue to strengthen our intelligence function to better identify and track terrorists, those individuals will be forced to find ways to conceal their identity in order to avoid detection. We must be able to establish, as close to certainty as we can, that people are who they say they are, and in order to do so the federal government must have documents that it can trust. In fact, we would not be fulfilling our security role for the American people if we did not.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these important provisions and the passage of this conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the wartime supplemental that includes urgent funding for our soldiers and sailors now prosecuting the global war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill also…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the wartime supplemental that includes urgent funding for our soldiers and sailors now prosecuting the global war on terror in Afghanistan
and Iraq. This bill also has important additional funding for border security, and language important to South Texas shrimpers that will make it easier for them to hire workers for the coming season.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I know our soldiers can do anything. Yet that truth does not mean that the Congress should skimp on our financial obligations to our fighting men and women. They run out of money altogether at the end of this month, so I am pleased we are finalizing this bill today.
As a border Congressman, I am grateful that the conferees included desperately needed funding for border security. I have been relentless in talking to so many of you about my concerns related to spending on border security matters. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for his work in getting negotiators to include this spending. While this is a good start, it still comes up short of both what we need and what the Intelligence Reform bill mandated we do.
The Intelligence Reform bill passed by Congress last year mandated 2,000 Border Patrol agents a year for the next 5 years. The President came to the table with only 210 in his budget; today we are adding another 500. That's still over 1,000 short of what this government agrees is the very least we should do to protect our border and stem the tide of releasing OTMs--illegal immigrants that are ``other than Mexican''--into the U.S. general population.
Given our border security is entirely budget driven, this is a rare victory for those of us who have been talking about the need to put our money where our mouth is when it comes to protecting our nation from terrorists that may be trying to enter the country through the loopholes in our border security policy. We are sending our young soldiers to fight and die in Iraq and Afghanistan and we justify that by saying we are fighting the war there so we will not have to fight it here.
We may very well be fighting a war over there and letting terrorists in our back door. As so many South Texans and my colleagues know, I have been lifting my voice about how border security is profoundly lacking. Currently, the United States does not have room to hold the large number of OTMs, caught by border law enforcement. While I know that most of these immigrants are merely seeking a better life, it is the few--the handful--that may be entering our country to do us harm. That is whom we need to worry about. So we are releasing, on their own recognizance, into the population of the United States very large numbers of OTMs.
What happens is our border patrol agents routinely call detention facilities and discover there is no room to hold OTMs. So, they process these immigrants, many times without even getting fingerprints or running them through our national databases to see if they are on watch lists, and release them into the general population with a notice to appear at a deportation hearing a few weeks later. Law enforcement officers then take the released OTMs to the local bus station by the vanload, where they head elsewhere in the U.S. The number that never appear for deportation is over 90 percent of those released, a number now probably over 75,000.
Already the number of OTMs captured and released is more, so far this year, than for all of last year. It is little wonder that private citizens are taking the law into their own hands to try to stem the tide of OTMs coming into our country. But private militias, operating without the color of law, are not the answer. We must secure our borders so private citizens do not feel the need to do so.
As a former law enforcement officer I know if we don't have the border officers to stop the OTMs crossing the border, if we don't have the room to hold the ones we catch, if we don't put our money where our mouth is, we continue to send a dangerous signal to those who may wish to do us harm. Until we send a signal that those who cross our borders illegally, until we send a signal that when we catch you we will hold you until you are deported, until we honestly face the amount of money it will take to deal with these things, OTMs will continue to flock to the U.S., quite possibly populating terror cells already operating in the United States.
Unfortunately, the Leadership decided to include many controversial provisions that members wouldn't otherwise support if they weren't linked to funding our troops. I do not agree with some of the so-called security provisions in this bill, mainly the stricter asylum laws and national standards for drivers' licenses. A country like ours that believes so greatly in freedom and the protection of the oppressed should be a safe haven for refugees that are being persecuted by their governments because of their race, religion or political beliefs, which is why we are fighting the war we fund in this bill.
I am also disappointed Congress has gone one step further in creating a national ID. Many would suggest that a drivers' license is the way terrorists are infiltrating our country. That is simply not the case. Standardizing a drivers' license would not have precluded the 9/11 terrorists from entering this country--immigration reform and better border security practices would have.
Today's bill is a start in putting our money where our mouth is, but it is still insufficient to the monumental border security task before us and I ask our appropriators to ensure the necessary funding is included in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill.
Show 11 more
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, to authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for our military. The vast majority of this $82 billion bill will go directly to support our troops in…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, to authorize emergency supplemental appropriations for our military. The vast majority of this $82 billion bill will go directly to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect the national security of our Nation. When our soldiers are sent in to war, it is the Congress' responsibility to make sure that all resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions.
I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf of their country and have served longer deployments than expected.
This bill provides important new benefits for our troops and their families. The legislation: increases the military death gratuity; increases subsidized life insurance benefits; creates a new insurance benefit for soldiers who have suffered traumatic injuries, such as the loss of a limb; extends the Basic Allowance for Housing for dependents of soldiers who die while on active duty; and provides additional funding for add-on vehicle armor kits, night-vision equipment, and radio jammers that disrupt remote-control bombs and mines.
The conference report also contains important measures to strengthen our domestic border security, by providing funds for new border patrol agents, immigration and customs investigators, enforcement agents, and detention officers. The bill also provides additional foreign assistance for: tsunami reconstruction; humanitarian and peacekeeping programs in Darfur; democracy assistance in Belarus; and political and economic reforms in Ukraine to strengthen their new democracy and legal system.
I regret that the Administration has consistently failed to properly budget for our ongoing military and reconstruction operations in Iraq. Congress should not repeatedly rely on emergency spending bills to provide the critical funding, resources, and equipment for our troops in battle by using emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
The United States is only belatedly seeking international support for our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, and we have failed to broadly engage the international community.
Because of these failures, Americans have paid a heavy price. It is primarily American troops stationed in Iraq that face continuing attacks, and have lost life and limb. It is our taxpayers that are being asked to almost exclusively pay the cost to rebuild Iraq, and these costs are mounting every day. Iraq is already facing a difficult transition in establishing a democracy that operates under the rule of law and protects minority rights. The U.S. must show enough flexibility in working with our allies to effectively help Iraq during this critical transition period, so that other countries will pledge both troops and funds to alleviate the burden on our American soldiers and taxpayers. Ultimately, the best way that we can support our troops is to reach out more aggressively to the international community, establish order and security in Iraq, and help the interim Iraqi government assume more responsibility for its own affairs as they establish a democratic state.
I am also disappointed that the Republican leadership decided to insert extraneous provisions into this legislation, which go beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I voted against the ``REAL ID Act'' when it was considered by this House as a separate bill earlier this year. I am particularly concerned that this legislation repeals a number of provisions of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which enacted the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 bill established a negotiated rulemaking framework--allowing for critical input from governors, State legislators, State officials, and other stakeholders--which would provide the opportunity to develop effective national standards for driver's licenses. I am concerned that this legislation does not give the States adequate flexibility to implement the 9/11 bill, and that this legislation may also create serious unfunded mandates and administrative burdens for the States.
As the ranking member of the Helsinki Commission (Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe), which promotes human rights and rule of law in Europe, I am also concerned about many of the asylum law changes contained in the REAL ID Act, which again go beyond the scope of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. These provisions may have a harmful effect on true asylum seekers, trafficking victims, women and children who are victims of domestic violence, and others seeking protection against persecution. This legislation may create higher burdens for legitimate asylum seekers, restrict judicial discretion to grant asylum, and take away some of the rights of appeal for certain refugees and asylum seekers.
Over the past week I have heard from a number of groups in Maryland that provide legal and social services to immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, and survivors of torture and slavery. These groups have reported to me that it is already extremely difficult for legitimate asylum seekers to prevail in their case, as they have often left their home country on short notice, and do not have documentation of their persecution. It can take months or years for a case to work its way through our legal system. During this period, the asylum seeker often has neither legal representation nor work documentation.
I hope that in the near future Congress will have the opportunity, in a more thoughtful manner, to consider comprehensive immigration reform measures.
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to initiate a study of the feasibility of designating the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a…
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to initiate a study of the feasibility of designating the route of Captain John Smith's exploration of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as a National Historic Trail. Joining me in sponsoring this legislation are my colleagues Senators Warner, Allen and Mikulski.
Our system of National Historic Trails, NHTs, commemorate major routes of historic travel and mark major events which shaped American history. To date, 13 National Historic Trails have been established in the National Park Service including the Lewis and Clark, the Pony Express, Selma to Montgomery, and Trail of Tears National Historic Trails. To be designated as a National Historic Trail, a trail must meet three basic criteria: it must be nationally significant, have a documented route through maps or journals, and provide for recreational opportunities. In my judgment, the proposed Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Watertrail meets all three criteria.
Captain John Smith was one of America's earliest explorers. His role in the founding of Jamestown, VA--the first permanent English settlement in North America--and in exploring the Chesapeake Bay region during the years 1607 to 1609 marks a defining period in the history of our Nation. His contemporaries and historians alike credit Smith's strong leadership with ensuring the survival of the fledgling colony and laying the foundation for the future establishment of our nation.
With a dozen men in a 30-foot open boat, Smith's expeditions in search of food for the new colony and the fabled Northwest Passage took him nearly 3,000 miles around the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from the Virginia capes to the mouth of the Susquehanna. On his voyages and as President of the Jamestown Colony, Captain Smith became the first point of contact for scores of Native American leaders from around the Bay region. His relationship with Pocahontas is now an important part of American folklore. Smith's notes describing the indigenous people he met and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem are still widely studied by historians, environmental scientists, and anthropologists.
The remarkably accurate maps and charts that Smith made of his voyages into the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries served as the definitive map of the region for nearly a century. His voyages, as chronicled in his journals, ignited the imagination of the Old World, and helped launch an era of adventure and discovery in the New World. Hundreds, and then thousands of people aspired to settle in what Smith described as one of `` the most pleasant places known, for large and pleasant navigable rivers, heaven and earth never agreed better to frame a place for man's habitation.'' Even today, his vivid descriptions of the Bay's abundance still serve as a benchmark for the health and productivity of the Bay.
With the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown quickly approaching, the designation of this route as a national historic trail would be a tremendous way to celebrate an important part of our nation's story and serve as a reminder of John Smith's role in establishing the colony and opening the way for later settlements in the New World. It would also give recognition to the Native American settlements, culture and natural history of the 17th century Chesapeake. Similar in historic importance to the Lewis and Clark National Trail,
this new historic watertrail will inspire generations of Americans and visitors to follow Smith's journeys, to learn about the roots of our nation and to better understand the contributions of the Native Americans who lived within the Bay region.
Equally important, the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Watertrail can serve as a national outdoor resource by providing rich opportunities for education, recreation, and heritage tourism not only for more than 16 million Americans living in the Bay's watershed, but for visitors to this area. The water trail would be the first National Watertrail established in the United States and would allow voyagers in small boats, cruising boats, kayaks and canoes to travel from the distant headwaters to the open Bay--an accomplishment that would inspire today's explorers and would generate national and international attention and participation. The Trail would complement the Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Initiative and help highlight the Bay's remarkable maritime history, its unique watermen and their culture, the diversity of its peoples, its historical settlements and our current efforts to restore and sustain the world's most productive estuary.
This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Congress and in the States through which the trail passes. The legislation has been endorsed by the Governors of Virginia, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland. The measure is also strongly supported by The Conservation Fund, Izaak Walton League, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the latter two organizations expressing support for the legislation be printed in the Record. I want to commend Pat Noonan, Chairman Emeritus of The Conservation Fund, for his vision in conceiving this trail and urge that the legislation be quickly enacted.
As John Smith wrote four centuries ago and as many Americans today agree, ``no place is more convenient for pleasure, profit and man's sustenance'' than the Chesapeake Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for this bill, especially for its Iraqi dollars, because this bill…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for this bill, especially for its Iraqi dollars, because this bill analyzes microscopically the kinds of equipment that is needed there now, and then surgically targets those dollars in a vastly efficient manner for our troops.
The bill also deals with healing the wounds of both mind and body of those soldiers who are returning. The bill also deals with small businesses being able, through the H-2B process, to hire legal workers. And the bill also deals with enhanced technology for the tsunami situation that we saw so much, months ago.
I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for the legislation, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the $17 million included in the Supplemental that we are considering today, which will support the expansion of the U.S. Tsunami Warning Network. These funds will help NOAA to procure and deploy tsunami detection buoys in a system designed to provide continuous tsunami warning capability for both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the United States. Detection is a critical part of a warning system which I hope will ultimately include a comprehensive approach to educating communities about, and preparing them for, tsunamis.
Comprising 70 percent of the Earth's surface area, our oceans support a growing source of protein for many developing countries, promising sources of medicines, and efficient transport of goods between continents and among nations. They also strongly influence our climate and weather and provide economic and unmeasurable quality of life
benefits. For proof of this, one only needs to know that the U.S. coasts support over 50 percent of the U.S. population and comprise only 17 percent of our land base.
When South Asia was struck by tsunami waves on December 26, the world's interest in tsunami detection and warning systems was heightened. The impact of these waves was felt around the world, and the tragedy of its immediate effect on Indian Ocean coastlines has painfully exposed our lack of ability to provide early warning and coastal community education and support. Many lifelong residents of Indian Ocean coastal towns fear the sea--the primary source of their livelihoods for generations. It is critical that individuals in high- risk areas are educated about and prepared for tsunamis before they strike. Coastal communities need assurance that technology exists and will be applied to increase warnings for such events and to prepare them for evacuation to avoid catastrophic loss of human life.
In contrast, developed nations use increasing technological sophistication to acquire from the sea its bounty--with little thought for the long-term sustainability of this activity. In time, without increased understanding of our ocean ecosystems and the impact of our harvest and extraction of its resources, developed nations may also come to fear the sea. The antidote to the disease of fear is understanding. New technologies have already led to enormous advances in our understanding of the coastal and marine environment. However, advanced sensors have been deployed only on relatively small scales, and the systems that are deployed have not been coordinated into an integrated system that will optimize our understanding of the oceans.
Since the U.S. hosted the Earth Observation Summit in July 2003, we have been working with our partner nations to adopt a comprehensive, coordinated and sustained Earth Observation System to collect and disseminate data, information and models for more effective and responsible use of our resources as well as to inform decision-makers about impending disasters. Most recently, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy made an integrated ocean observing system a top recommendation in its report, An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century.
Our space exploration and our weather programs show that when our scientists and the Nation support a program and devote time, money and, most importantly, the human mind into these types of endeavors we are highly successful. The ocean, however, is often referred to as the last frontier, a place where we continue to find new organisms and species and where we still struggle to understand the profound implications for climate changes and more direct impacts of the oceans on our human habitats.
There is perhaps no more motivating event, no louder a voice for attention and understanding than having the ocean engulf human habitats. Our failure to fully develop and utilize our technology to understand our oceans has many more implications, including the potential for permanent damage to fragile and complex ecosystems that have generously provided us with food, medicines, recreation, and other benefits. We are now awake to the power of the ocean, and it is my hope that we will use this opportunity to move more quickly toward integrated data collection and dissemination systems, as well as intensive education of coastal communities, to ensure that we and future generations can look to the sea for inspiration, sustenance, and life-giving support.
I strongly support the inclusion of these funds to increase global monitoring capacity and public awareness about tsunamis and other disasters, particularly if they add to capacity of ocean monitoring as part of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS).
Mr. Speaker, in regards to what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said, I am surprised at the new chairman. He is so lenient about getting time out of him. Usually our bill moves much…
Mr. Speaker, in regards to what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) just said, I am surprised at the new chairman. He is so lenient about getting time out of him. Usually our bill moves much faster than this. I thought he learned.
Let me say the defense part of this and maybe the rest of it is probably the most bipartisan bill one could ever find. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), and I have been traveling to these various bases. We found shortages every place we went, all kinds of problems that they brought to our attention that needed to be rectified. We found problems so severe that many of the units that were on their way to Iraq were C-4. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), my good friend, the hero from Vietnam, knows what I am talking about when I say C-4. I am talking about they are not ready to go to combat because the equipment is so bad.
As a matter of fact, the equipment was so bad at one base, and I think it was Fort Stewart where the troops did not have radios to train with, did not have small arms ammunition, did not have mortar ammunition to train with, and that means that when they get there, they are not at the cutting edge of where they should be. Now they get equipment when they get there, and that overcomes the C-4.
So the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and I, what we did was put $2.3 billion into the budget. We first checked, the staff checked, with the Army to make sure that that is where it ought to be put. The Army came back and supported us. Usually, they beat around the bush. The gentleman from California (Chairman
Lewis) knows what I mean. We talk to them, and because of other people over there, they do not want to admit that they need the money. This time they were very emphatic that they needed every cent and they needed it as soon as they could get it. So we added money for the types of things that they need.
Having said that, what I have said to the services because we are having such a problem, we see the recruiting problem, we are looking into that right now. The subcommittee I serve on, we realize and we have said for a long time, they are going to have a recruiting problem as this war gets unpopular; and we were trying to figure out how do we overcome that.
Most times I disagree with those bonuses because I feel so strongly that people ought to join the Armed Forces for the good of the country, but we have to give bonuses to send them over there. We put money in for those kinds of things. We increased the amount of money somebody gets when they are killed in action. We expanded it so that when they are killed in action, they are taken care of retroactively as well as prospectively. We take care of somebody who is wounded. We added money to it. Some veterans group called me and said they were not happy with the way we added that money. They felt like there ought to be more study, and I cannot disagree with that.
But when the four of us sat down, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, we came to the conclusion that we just did not think we could wait. So we put money in to take care of people who were injured so severely as well as the ones that were killed. And I got so many letters from the people at home, and I have had 12 killed in my district, how pleased they were about what we are doing because it helped them get through a very difficult time.
What we have tried to do over the years is make sure that the people that were in the Armed Forces had what they needed, that the people in Iraq have what they need. Our subcommittee brought to the attention of the country that they were without a lot of equipment in Iraq. We are working right now. New trucks, we are trying to figure out how to put new trucks in that are encapsulated because we have taken care of the Humvees, but we need to take care of the trucks now. So we got some commercial trucks which were recommended which were $100,000 less, but it was so late, we could not get it in the bill. We are going to ask for reprogramming for that amount of money.
So this bill is taking care of equipment shortages, not all of them, but it is taking care of as many as we could possibly squeeze in. It is taking care of Reset. We forced the military to ask for Reset. The minute that this war is over and the money starts to dry up, Reset will be the first thing they do not do; so we have to do it now. And I have said to many of the industrial leaders in this country, the minute the war is over, there will not be any supplementals, there will be a lot less money to be spent, and we have got to spend this money now in the supplementals to make sure that that gets done. Armor modularity, there is some argument about that; but we think it ought to be done, and we have pushed this.
Many of the programs that the Army has today have come about because of the Defense Subcommittee, chaired by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and chaired by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). Many of the things that have happened have happened because we see it out in the field. We go out in the field, talk to the people, make sure that we are doing the right thing, and then we try to send defense in the right direction.
So I urge the Members to vote for this. The troops need it, and it helps dramatically for the amount of money that is needed by the Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the $82 billion spending bill that will be approved today for the ongoing U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will support this bill. I am…
Mr. Speaker, I want to comment briefly on the $82 billion spending bill that will be approved today for the ongoing U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I will support this bill. I am pleased it includes additional money for body armor and armored vehicles for our troops. It includes money to purchase bomb-jamming devices to protect our troops from roadside bombs. I also support the improved life insurance death benefits for military personnel and their families. And, I am hopeful that the additional funds that are in the bill to train and equip security forces in Iraq all Afghanistan will be expeditious and well spent. This money is critical if Afghan and Iraqi forces are to take over security duties from American troops, which will allow our men and women to finally come home. I have called for negotiating a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops with the new Iraqi government, hopefully to be completed within the year. But, for that to become a reality, well-equipped and competent security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan must be prepared to take our place. This bill will help achieve that goal.
I am also pleased that the final bill retained language inserted in the Senate directing the President to include future requests to fund the U.S. presence in Iraq in his regular budget. We have been in Iraq for more than two years and in Afghanistan for more than three years. The fact that we still have troops in Iraq should not come as a surprise to the budget writers at the White House and the Pentagon. It is not appropriate to continue funding these long-term, ongoing operations via supplemental appropriations bills, which are considered outside of the normal budget procedures and restrictions.
While I support the bill, I am outraged that, more than two years after the U. S. invaded Iraq, the Pentagon leadership has not gotten their act together to adequately protect our troops and to come up with a plan to get them home.
As columnist Mark Shields pointed out late last year, in the three years immediately after Pearl Harbor, the United States produced the following to win World War II: 296,429 aircraft, 102,3351 tanks, 87,620 warships, and 2,455,694 trucks. At the time, the U.S. population was 132 million and the size of our economy was less than $100 billion. Yet, approaching three years into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the United States, with a population of almost 300 million and defense spending of $500 billion a year, under the failed leadership of the Pentagon, only 6,000 of the nearly 20,000 Humvees in Iraq are factory armored versions and more than 8,000 of the 9,128 medium and heavy trucks used in Iraq are without armor.
Despite repeated promises from the Pentagon leadership that the situation is getting better, a recent article in The New York Times showed that the emperor has no clothes. As the article details, one Marine Company has returned home to expose the reality of their tour in Iraq, ``one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their most competent warriors.''
I have heard similar stories from the Oregon National Guard members I have talked to.
How did this happen?
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against our country; Congress has provided the Pentagon with $1.6 trillion--$167 billion in supplemental appropriations bills for fiscal years 2001-2005; and $1.45 trillion in regular defense appropriations for fiscal years 2002-2005. Today's bill will add $75 billion or so to the Pentagon budget. Given that level of funding, it is hard to understand why our troops continue to suffer shortages of critical equipment.
It is hard to understand until you remember that Secretary Rumsfeld and the other civilian leaders at the Pentagon argued that our troops would be greeted in Iraq as liberators with flowers and candy, not the bullets and bombs that have led to more than 1,500 of our soldiers getting killed. Before, the invasion, the Pentagon planned to reduce our troop levels to 20,000-30,000 within a few weeks of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The fact that 150,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq more than a year and a half after the war began shows how badly the Pentagon leadership miscalculated the post-war situation.
Those miscalculations also led the Pentagon to vastly underestimate the equipment that our troops would need to survive and succeed in Iraq. First, the Pentagon leadership did not even order the necessary equipment like body armor, armored Humvees and bomb jamming devices. For example, under the Pentagon's original war plan, the Pentagon planned to have only 235 armored Humvees in Iraq for the 20,000 troops who would remain after overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Then, when it became clear that this equipment was necessary, the Pentagon did not procure it with any sense of urgency. As The New York Times article I mentioned above noted, ``The Army's procurement system, which also supplies the Marines, has come under fierce criticism for underperforming in the war, and to this day it has only one small contractor in Ohio armoring new Humvees.''
The performance of Secretary Rumsfeld and his senior leadership at the Pentagon has been a disgrace. Unfortunately, it is our troops who have had to pay the price.
Mr. President, first, let me thank the twenty-or-so organizations that have offered their support for our bill which creates a Medicaid Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the full list of…
Mr. President, first, let me thank the twenty-or-so organizations that have offered their support for our bill which creates a Medicaid Commission. I ask unanimous consent that the full list of groups and their letters of support be printed in the Record. The importance of this bill, I believe, is demonstrated by the outpouring of support expressed by such a diverse group of people representing state and local elected officials, providers and advocates. It is truly impressive.
With the debate growing over the President's budget proposal for the Medicaid program, Senator Bingaman and I are joining together with many of our colleagues to introduce this bill that calls for the creation of a Medicaid Commission. We are joined by Senators Snowe, Lincoln, Santorum, Ben Nelson, DeWine, Jeffords, Collins, Durbin, Chafee and Kerry in introducing the bill today.
For too long Medicaid has gone unnoticed by policy makers. Over the past few decades Congress has spent a great deal of time and effort modernizing the Medicare program, developing ideas to fund Social Security, reforming our intelligence gathering apparatus, and enacting legislation that stimulates the economy. Yet, through it all Medicaid has gone unnoticed, even though it recently became the nation's largest health care program.
As the former President of the Oregon Senate, I have long championed Medicaid and worked to protect the vulnerable populations who are helped by it. As a new member of the Finance Committee in 2003, I helped lead the effort to provide $20 billion in short-term fiscal assistance. However, since that time it has become clear that Medicaid requires more than band-aide fixes.
Medicaid requires a thorough review that should be performed by all key stakeholders working together to evaluate the program. We need to consider its pluses and minuses, and then chart a new path for the future. Our proposed Medicaid Commission will do just that.
As I have discussed with Governors, Secretary Leavitt and Administrator McClellan, we have a unique opportunity in the history of the Medicaid program. For once, everyone seems to be focused on protecting and improving the program. The challenge lies in bringing everyone together.
It certainly won't be easy, but accomplishing great things never is. It will require both parties to work together. It will require Congress to reach out to the Administration, Governors, State Legislators, providers and advocates to determine how best to improve such a vital program.
And it will require advocates and providers to be willing to listen to new ideas that may help improve the program by creating efficiencies, improving quality and expanding access to care. This can't be accomplished working against each other or only with select partners--it can only be accomplished when everyone works together.
I have never argued that this Commission is necessary because Medicaid is broken. I truly believe in this program because I have seen the difference it makes in Americans' lives. It helps support poor children so they can go to school healthy and ready to learn.
It helps a poor expectant-mother receive the prenatal care necessary for her new child to be born healthy and able to live a fulfilling life, it helps a family manage the care of a disabled child, and it helps an elderly person spend their last few years living with dignity. However, this program is not perfect; improvements can and should be made.
I don't have to look any further than my home State of Oregon to see that change can be beneficial. In Oregon, most people who live with a disability or who are elderly are served in their home or community. It seems appropriate that this would happen, but Oregon actually had to apply for a waiver to care for people in this way. That's because under Medicaid States receive incentives to care for people in nursing homes, it's called an institutional bias.
On the other hand, extreme reforms should be instituted simply to save money. Medicaid is expensive, but so is private health care coverage in this country. And in comparison, Medicaid is a pretty good deal.
On a per-capita basis, Medicaid has only grown at a little more than four percent while private sector health care costs have grown at over 12 percent. The problem with Medicaid is that enrollment is growing and a lot more money is being spent on long-term care compared to years past.
Much work is ahead of us. And one of the best ways to keep Medicaid on the right path and ensure its long-term sustainability is to enact this bill right now. If this Commission were made law today, we could have its recommendations in time to inform Congress' deliberations next year. We have a short window of opportunity before us. I urge my colleagues, the President and all supporters to embrace this bill today and call for its passage so the Medicaid Commission can get to work.
Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 1268 was first considered on the floor in March, I reluctantly supported its passage. Now that the conference report has been returned to the House for this chamber's approval,…
Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 1268 was first considered on the floor in March, I reluctantly supported its passage. Now that the conference report has been returned to the House for this chamber's approval, I still find myself torn because I do not see how additional funding for the Iraq War effort will ultimately produce a positive outcome for the United States or for the people in Iraq. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.
Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, or lack thereof, I do not believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, should be penalized for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian military leadership at the White House and the Pentagon. As we speak, our ground forces scrounge for scrap metal to make the unarmored vehicles more safe against insurgent attack. The funds provided in this bill will enable our soldiers and Marines on the ground to uparmor their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the American public that they were deployed without adequate equipment from the beginning. But they are there. It is vital that our troops receive the equipment they need to defend themselves against attack.
I have been critical of our war planning from the outset. I voted against the authority that allowed the President to take action in Iraq. I continue to be frustrated that our war plan still contains no game plan on when we can begin to bring our troops home. I am pleased that the bill does contain provisions that require the administration to develop a set of performance indicators and measures for determining the stability and security in Iraq and report its findings to Congress. This requirement falls well short of the exit strategy we need to determine how long our commitment in Iraq will last.
The bill also funds tsunami relief, which is well overdue. The agreement appropriates $656 million in direct assistance to tsunami disaster relief for countries affected by last December's tragedy. The total includes $5 million to support environmental recovery activities; $10 million to create new economic opportunities for women; and $12.5 million to support initiatives that focus on the immediate and long- term needs of children.
The bill provides $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan and elsewhere in Africa, including funds for the temporary resettlement of refugees. It also funds $240 million for international humanitarian food assistance through the Food for Peace Program, much of which will go to the Darfur region. This assistance will provide some relief to those who are being victimized by the ethnic cleansing that is being waged against the black Muslim population by the Arab Muslim-dominated Sudanese government.
In a period when the President and this Congress proposes reductions in programs that support the development of local communities and neighborhoods, the bill provides
$592 million for a gold-plated embassy compound in Iraq. I find it very difficult to defend such spending when the budget priorities of this administration propose disinvesting in our cities, towns and our American workforce. Money for this project goes beyond providing office and working space for U.S. foreign service personnel. What we are proposing to build is not an embassy, but a compound, with stores and other amenities which will further distance our American embassy personnel from the Iraqi civilian and political population. We are constructing a fortress, not an embassy. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.
Another key element of this agreement with which I take issue is the mandate imposed on states that requires certain identification standards on driver's licenses for federal identification purposes. The measure mandates that states meet certain requirements for determining the validity of persons applying for drivers' licenses. Although the bill provides authority for states to receive federal grants to comply, it is insufficient and amounts to an unfunded federal mandate.
The money contained in this bill will go a long way to saving lives, saving the lives of our land forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and reconstructing the lives of those who experienced the devastation of last year's tsunami. After weighing the alternatives, I reluctantly support the passage of this bill. I am not happy with the choices we are making today. I feel backed into a corner without much wiggle room, but the lives of our troops matter to me and they deserve the protection this bill is designed to deliver to them.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the War Supplemental Appropriations Act but must voice my incredible misgivings for what the Republican majority has attached to legislation that should solely be…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the War Supplemental Appropriations Act but must voice my incredible misgivings for what the Republican majority has attached to legislation that should solely be about how we provide for our brave men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is much in this bill to be proud of. Our military, despite the job of the civilian brass and this Congress, have been performing heroically. They have accomplished much more than we could have ever hoped for, and if any fault needs to be assigned it is to the policy makers, and not to those in uniform.
However, I am ashamed that this body has taken something as important as securing our troops, and attached a hastily considered immigration provision that will result in massive unfunded mandates being passed on to our states. I am ashamed that the conference committee removed language that would have created a Truman-style Commission to examine war profiteering, largely to ensure that this administration would not be embarrassed. Finally, I am ashamed that this Congress has turned its back on a promise made by our President to the Palestinian Authority to help improve the situation of the Palestinian people and further the cause of peace for all in the Middle East.
I am concerned that the immigration provisions will force our great nation to turn our back on the thousands of political and human rights asylum seekers who look toward America as their last and best hope. The Real ID Act will force the most vulnerable to have their torturers corroborate their tales of persecution.
I understand that we must protect our borders, and I understand that changes must be made to keep out those that seek to do us harm. But we should not hastily foreclose the dream and promise of America because of fear. We should not send back asylum seekers back to their torturers. Under these standards, Iraqis seeking to escape the rape rooms of Saddam Hussein would have been sent back to the Ba'athist prisons if they fled Iraq without the proper documentation.
I am also dismayed that rather than seeking to be responsible stewards of the public's trust, the Republican majority in charge of Congress once again decided to ignore its oversight responsibilities. It seems that rather than doing our oversight job as a separate and equal branch of government, the GOP leadership would rather save the Bush Administration and corporate CEOs some embarrassment.
I am old enough to remember the Truman Commission. I remember that Sen. Truman went against a Democratic administration, and saved our military and our tax payers billions of dollars in waste and fraud. I cannot understand why we do not do the same.
My friends on the other side of the aisle should be ashamed of the fact that Mr. Waxman and I have probably done more on this front from the minority, than has anyone with a gavel. Reconstructing Iraq and Afghanistan is too important not to get it right, but confronted yet again with evidence of massive fraud and egregious war profiteering, my Republican colleagues are again choosing to bury their heads in the sand, plug their ears, and turn out the lights on our duty.
Finally, this bill, by intention or not, has the potential of undoing all the progress that the Middle East Peace process has made since the death of Yasser Arafat. Mr. Speaker, the new president of the Palestinian Authority is in an almost untenable position. In order for Palestinian democracy to succeed over radical terrorism, President Abbas must be provided with the resources to open hospitals, create jobs, arm a police force, build jails, and take the fight to the terrorists.
President Bush recognized this. He made a statement asking for $200 million to support a nascent Middle Eastern democracy. Instead of allowing President Abbas to use American aid to build his security forces to take on terror, we instead set him up for failure. My friends, if you want to see Hamas win the upcoming municipal elections; if you want to see the peace process come to an abject halt; if you want to see more dead young Israelis and young Palestinians you should support this language.
It surprises me that the only thing that this Congress is capable of bucking and embarrassing this Administration on is the prospect of peace. I hope, for the sake of peace, we can correct this colossal error in judgment and that the President and the State Department speak out against Congress' ill-advised policy making on this most tragic conflict.
Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 2004, the national debt of the United States exceeded $7 trillion for the first time in our country's history. One year later, our national debt is $7.7 trillion. In the…
Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 2004, the national debt of the United States exceeded $7 trillion for the first time in our country's history. One year later, our national debt is $7.7 trillion. In the past year, our country has added $700 billion to our national debt.
The conference report for the FY06 budget resolution that is before us today would increase the statutory debt limit by $781 billion to a record $9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The out-of-control rise in our national debt over the last year and the rise in our debt envisioned in this conference report are further signs of the terrible fiscal position in which we now find ourselves.
In 2001, we had ten-year projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion [2002- 2011]. Now, over that same time period, we have likely ten-year deficits of $3.9 trillion. That's a $9.5 trillion reversal in our ten- year fiscal outlook.
Whether intentional or otherwise, our country's current fiscal policies are depriving the federal government of future revenue at a time when we ought to be preparing for an unprecedented demographic shift that will strain Social Security and Medicare. Our current fiscal irresponsibility will eventually land squarely on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren, who will be forced to pay back the debt we are accumulating today. The ``debt tax'' that we are imposing on our children and grandchildren cannot be repealed. It can only be reduced if we take responsible steps now to improve our situation.
Both parties need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to bring our budget back into balance so we can avoid the higher long-term interest rates and weakened dollar that are the inevitable consequences of rising deficits and a high national debt. We are witnessing on a daily basis the reaction of the global financial markets to our fiscal irresponsibility, and as we can see in this conference report, Congress has not yet gotten the message that deficits and debt matter.
For starters, Congress needs to reinstate PAYGO rules for the entire budget, including spending and revenue measures. Budget enforcement rules that apply to only certain parts of the budget will not have a significant impact on our rising deficits, as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan mentioned in his recent testimony before the Budget Committee.
This fiscal year alone, interest on the national debt is expected to rise to $178 billion, and the administration projects that that figure will increase to $211 billion during the next fiscal year. To put that figure in perspective, projected interest on our national debt next year will be $75 billion more than projected spending on education, public health, health research, and veterans' benefits combined [$138 billion].
Further, the budget conference report before us today, which was filed only three hours before the House began to consider it, would require the House to cut Medicaid funding by as much as $15 billion over the next five years.
Just two days ago the House voted, by a vote of 348-72, to reject harmful cuts to the Medicaid program, and this conference report blatantly ignores the will of the House.
In addition to assuming an ever-larger share of our annual budgets, the interest on our debt, and the debt itself, are increasing our reliance on foreign borrowers, which will weaken our position in the world and increase the risk that another nation will be able to assert greater leverage over America. Over the last year, our country has borrowed nearly $400 billion [$389 billion] from foreign countries, and almost half [44%] of our publicly-held debt is held by foreign creditors [$1.96 trillion, out of $4.4 trillion of publicly held debt].
Finally, our deficits and debt threaten the Social Security and Medicare programs that have raised so many of our seniors out of poverty and helped sustain the strongest middle class in history. With a projected 75 year unfunded liability of $3.7 trillion, both parties in Congress need to work together to address Social Security's solvency problem, and this conference report does nothing to protect Social Security. In fact, it continues the practice of raiding the Social Security trust funds to pay for other expenses of the federal government.
It is time for Congress to stop playing games with our national debt, with Social Security, and with our kids and grandkids' futures and take a commonsense, bipartisan approach to solve our budget problems.
Mr. Speaker, I recently presented a joint statement with Senator Snowe regarding small business contracting and would like to submit it for the Record. Section 6022 of H.R. 1268, as adopted in the…
Mr. Speaker, I recently presented a joint statement with Senator Snowe regarding small business contracting and would like to submit it for the Record.
Section 6022 of H.R. 1268, as adopted in the Conference
Report, H. Rep. 109-72, contains certain provisions
concerning small business contracting at the Department of
Energy. These provisions were inserted as a substitute for
Section 6023 of the Senate version of H.R. 1268. Section
6023, among other things sought to amend the Small Business
Act to authorize counting of small business subcontracts at
the Department of Energy's large prime contractors for
purposes of reporting small business prime contracting
results. Because the substitute language was not adopted by
Congress through regular legislative proceedings in the
Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and
the House Committee on Small Business but was adopted anew
during the House-Senate conference, the committees of
jurisdiction take this opportunity to provide guidance
generally provided through their reports to Senators and
Representatives prior to their vote on the Conference Report,
and to affected Federal agencies prior to their
implementation of the Conference Report if adopted.
In subsections 6022 (a) and (b), the language chosen to
replace Section 6023 in the Conference Report directs the
Department of Energy and the Small Business Administration to
enter into a Memorandum of Understanding for reporting small
business prime contracts and subcontracts at the Department
of Energy. This replacement language does not change the
Small Business Act's clear distinction between prime
contracts and subcontracts, does not amend the statutory
small business prime contracting goal requirements which are
binding on the Department of Energy, and does not obviate
Congressional and regulatory policies against contract
bundling. This language does not repeal the President's
Executive Order 13360 directing the Department of Energy to
comply with its separate statutory prime contracting and
subcontracting goals for awards to small businesses owned by
service-disabled veterans. Any interpretation to the contrary
would be unreasonable and contrary to Congressional intent.
In subsection 6022(c), the replacement language mandates a
study of changes to management prime contracts at the
Department of Energy to encourage small business prime
contracting opportunities. The object of the study is to
examine the feasibility of establishing a procurement agency
relationship between the management prime contractors and the
Department of Energy in accordance with the requirements of
Federal procurement laws, Federal procurement regulations,
the ``Federal norm'' of government contracting as recognized
by the Comptroller General, and applicable judicial precedent
such as U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. United States, 940
F.2d 622 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Finally, in subsection 6022(d), the replacement language
imposes certain requirements upon the Department of Energy
concerning break-outs of services from large prime contracts
for awards to small businesses. First, the Secretary of
Energy is required to consider whether services performed
have been previously provided by a small business concern.
This requirement is for acquisition planning purposes only,
and shall not be construed as imposing a restriction of any
kind on the ability of the Department of Energy to break out
its large prime contracts for award to small businesses.
Congress recognizes that most of work currently contracted by
the Department of Energy to its large prime contractors has
never been historically performed by small businesses.
However, this does not waive the application of the Small
Business Act, the President's Executive Order 13360, or the
President's initiative against contract bundling to the
Department of Energy. Second, the Secretary of Energy is
required to consider whether small business concerns are
capable of performing under the contracts which are broken
out for award. This requirement is simply a restatement of
current statutory and regulatory requirements on contractor
responsibility. Subsection (d)(2) direct the Secretary of
Energy is required to--impose certain subcontracting
requirements. As the text plainly indicates, this provision
applies solely to small, business prime contracts which were
formerly small business subcontracts for services.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations (HR 1268), on substance and process. I am strongly supportive of our fighting men and women, and mourn the loss of…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations (HR 1268), on substance and process. I am strongly supportive of our fighting men and women, and mourn the loss of nearly 1,600 Americans who have died in Iraq, four of whom resided in my congressional district.
On substance, this bill fails to provide an exit strategy for our troops in Iraq. Since Iraq held democratic elections in January, the US should have been implementing an aggressive exit strategy that includes a timetable for the training of Iraqi security forces, so US troops can return home. Moreover, with nearly $10 billion already appropriated but not spent for critical reconstruction projects in Iraq, like rebuilding electrical grids and establishing telecommunications networks, US policy objectives for Iraqi independence are jeopardized. On process, many of the items in this bill should be funded under the regular order in the annual appropriations cycle.
Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership has used this bill as a vehicle for passage of immigration measures that are divisive and harmful for our country, and couldn't be passed as stand-alone bills. Provisions commonly known as the ``REAL ID Act'' regarding national driver's license standards, asylum law and completion of a southern border fence have been controversial from day one, but were added to appease a vocal minority of anti-immigrant advocates. I and many others in Congress would like to have a rational debate on immigration reform, but we are denied
the opportunity when the leadership attaches non-germane immigration measures to a funding bill.
To better demonstrate how the process has been hijacked by a minority of the majority, many of the same provisions that constitute the REAL ID provisions in the supplemental being considered today were stripped from the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (PL 108-458) in conference because of their extreme nature.
One of the most egregious provisions in the REAL ID section of the supplemental is the blanket authority given to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expedite construction of the remaining three miles of the southern border fence in San Diego. All Americans should be concerned that the DHS Secretary has carte blanche authority to waive any and all laws in the name of border security. This provision is a dangerous attack against the civil rights of all Americans, when any law can be waived under the guise of border security. Blanket authority to complete the three mile border fence is especially ``in your face'' politics when, under current law, the DHS Secretary already has a national security waiver for the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. We must work harder to strike a balance between our national security and environmental protection, not simply ignore environmental laws.
Furthermore, the driver's license provisions of this bill touted in the name of national security are equally concerning. It is indeed ironic that these provisions would not have stopped the 9/11 hijackers from obtaining driver's licenses. The breach of our border security was a result of the hijackers having been issued legal visas to enter the US, which many of them used to apply for driver's licenses and identification cards. Even if the REAL ID provisions had been in place before the 9/11 attacks, the hijackers still would have been able to obtain a driver's license or state-issued ID. Again, a minority of the majority is playing on the fears of this nation to enact a flawed policy that does not actually address the problem it purports to fix.
For the record, I do not support illegal immigration, but I do support a regulated process for immigrants who enter the US legally, pay their taxes and play by the rules to earn US citizenship. No one can deny that comprehensive Immigration reform is a topic on the minds of our constituents--but such a critical policy debate should be conducted on its own merits.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 339 Reported in Senate (RS)]
Calendar No. 85
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 339
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 9, 2005
Mr. Reid (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Salazar,
Mr. Craig, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary
April 21, 2005
Reported by Mr. Specter, without amendment
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.
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 ``Reaffirmation of State Regulation of
Resident and Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005''.
SEC. 2. DECLARATION OF POLICY AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONGRESSIONAL
SILENCE.
(a) In General.--It is the policy of Congress that it is in the
public interest for each State to continue to regulate the taking for
any purpose of fish and wildlife within its boundaries, including by
means of laws or regulations that differentiate between residents and
nonresidents of such State with respect to the availability of licenses
or permits for taking of particular species of fish or wildlife, the
kind and numbers of fish and wildlife that may be taken, or the fees
charged in connection with issuance of licenses or permits for hunting
or fishing.
(b) Construction of Congressional Silence.--Silence on the part of
Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier under clause 3 of
Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution (commonly referred to as the
``commerce clause'') to the regulation of hunting or fishing by a State
or Indian tribe.
SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed--
(1) to limit the applicability or effect of any Federal law
related to the protection or management of fish or wildlife or
to the regulation of commerce;
(2) to limit the authority of the United States to prohibit
hunting or fishing on any portion of the lands owned by the
United States; or
(3) to abrogate, abridge, affect, modify, supersede or
alter any treaty-reserved right or other right of any Indian
tribe as recognized by any other means, including, but not
limited to, agreements with the United States, Executive
Orders, statutes, and judicial decrees, and by Federal law.
SEC. 4. STATE DEFINED.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``State'' includes the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
Calendar No. 85
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 339
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To reaffirm the authority of States to regulate certain hunting and
fishing activities.
_______________________________________________________________________
April 21, 2005
Reported without amendment