Alan Grayson

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I have words for both Democrats and Republicans tonight. Let's start with the Democrats. We, as a party, have spent the last 6 months, the greatest minds of our party, dwelling on the question, the unbelievably consuming question, of how to get Olympia Snowe to vote for health care reform. I want to remind us all, Olympia Snowe was not elected President last year. Olympia Snowe has no veto power in the Senate. Olympia Snowe represents a State with one-half of 1 percent of America's population. What America wants is health care reform. America doesn't care if it gets 51 votes in the Senate or 60 votes in the Senate or 83 votes in the Senate. In fact, America doesn't even care about that. It doesn't care about that at all. What America cares about is this: There are over 1 million Americans who go broke every single year trying to pay their health care bills. America cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that there are 44,780 Americans who die every single year on account of not having health care. That's 11 every day. America sure cares a lot about that. America cares about the fact that if you have a preexisting condition, even if you have health insurance, it's not covered. America cares about that a lot. America cares about the fact that you can get all the health care you need as long as you don't need any. America cares about that a lot. But America does not care about procedures, processes, personalities. America doesn't care about that at all. So we have to remember that as Democrats. We have to remember what's at stake here is life and death, enormous amounts of money, and people are counting upon us to move ahead. America understands what's good for America. America cares about health care. America cares about jobs. America cares about education and energy independence. America does not care about process or politicians, or personalities, or anything like that. And I have a few words for my Republican friends tonight as well. I guess I do have some Republican friends. Let me say this. Last week, I held up this report here and I pointed out that in America there's 44,789 Americans who die every year, according to this Harvard report published in a peer review journal, because they have no health insurance. That's an extra 44,789 Americans who die, whose lives could be saved, and their response was to ask me for an apology. To ask me for an apology. That's right, to ask me for an apology. Well, I'm telling you this. I will not apologize. I will not apologize. I will not apologize for a simple reason. America doesn't care about your feelings. I violated no rules by bringing this report to America's attention. I think a lot of people didn't know about it beforehand. But America does care about health care in America. And if you're against it, then get out of the way, just get out of the way. You can lead, you can follow, or you can get out of the way. And I'm telling you now to get out of the way. America understands that there's one party in this country that's in favor of health care reform and one party that's against it, and they know why. They understand that if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation. They understand that if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they'd blame him for destroying the defense industry. In fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon. But that's not what America wants. America wants solutions to its problems, and that begins with health care, and that's what I'm speaking for tonight.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Last night here in this Chamber I gave a speech. I'm not going to recount every single thing that I said, but I will point out that immediately after that speech, several Republicans asked me to apologize. Well, I would like to apologize. I would like to apologize to the dead. And here is why. According to this study, ``Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults,'' which was published 2 weeks ago, 44,789 Americans die every year because they have no health insurance. That's right, 44,789 Americans die every year according to this Harvard study called Health Insurance and Mortality in U.S. Adults. You can see it by going to our Web site, grayson.house.gov. That is more than 10 times the number of Americans who have died in the war in Iraq. It's more than ten times the number of Americans who died in 9/11. But that is just once. This is every single year. That's right, every single year. Take a look at this. Read it and weep. And I mean that. Read it and weep because of all the Americans who are dying because they don't have health insurance. Now I think we should do something about that. And the Democratic health care plan does do something about that. It makes health care affordable to those who can't afford insurance, and it saves these people's lives. Let's remember that we should care about people even after they are born. So I call upon the Democratic Members of the House, I call upon the Republican Members of the House, and I call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of America, for the sake of those dying people and their families. I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. You may recall that a few weeks ago, President Obama came to this Chamber and he addressed the Chamber on health care before a joint session of the House and the Senate. During that session, I was privileged to be here, and I saw my colleagues on the far side of the aisle, the Republicans, waving pieces of paper during his speech, and I was wondering what they were. I couldn't imagine. It almost seemed like they wanted President Obama's autograph. I just didn't get it. I heard from one of my colleagues that this is what they call the Republican health care plan. I went over after the speech was over. I picked up a copy that was lying down on the Republican side, and it turns out that the Republicans health care plan was a blank piece of paper. I inquired further, trying to find out exactly what Republicans health care plan is, and it is my duty and pride tonight to be able to announce exactly what the Republicans plan to do for health care in America. It is this. It is a very simple plan. Here it is. The Republicans' health care plan for America: Don't get sick. That's right. Don't get sick. If you have insurance, don't get sick. If you don't have insurance, don't get sick. If you are sick, don't get sick. Just don't get sick. That's what the Republicans have in mind for you, America. That's the Republicans' health care plan. But I think that the Republicans understand that that plan isn't always going to work. It is not a foolproof plan. So the Republicans have a back-up plan in case you do get sick. If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want you to do. If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That's right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick. Now, the Democrats have a different plan. The Democrats say that if you have health insurance, we are going to make it better. If you don't have health insurance, we are going to provide it to you. If you can't afford health insurance, then we'll help you afford it. So America gets to decide. Do you want the Democratic plan or do you want to Republican plan? Remember, the Republican plan: Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 740, H.R. 905, I missed this vote because of a delayed flight, and heavy traffic on the 14th Street Bridge. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Speaker, I stand here today to honor a great American company. For more than 40 years, Darden Restaurants has been nourishing and delighting guests through the operation of some of the most popular restaurant brands in the country, including Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, the Capital Grille, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52. I'm proud to say that central Florida has always been, and will continue to be, home for Darden. The company has been instrumental in helping shape the growth and development of the region through its impassioned involvement and support of the community. Through corporate involvement, restaurant donations and support from the Darden Foundation and Environmental Trust, Darden has contributed millions of dollars to community based organizations and programs over the years. Today, Darden has once again demonstrated its commitment to central Florida with the opening on September 30, 2009, of a new $1.52 million, state-of-the-art corporate headquarters in my district that keeps 1,300 jobs in the region. Not only is Darden one of the leading employers in region, it's also the 29th largest private employer in America--employing 180,000 people in 49 States. Further, through all of its growth, Darden leads in its environmental stewardship and has remained committed to sustainability. Its new facility is on track to receive Gold certification for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for new construction from the United States Green Building Council. Upon final certification, it will be the largest newly constructed Gold LEED certified building in Florida. Additionally, Darden established the Darden Environmental Trust in 1997, which has contributed over $3 million to organizations that promote sustainability. Since 1997, the Darden Environmental Trust has actively engaged in the protection of endangered sea turtles, the whooping crane, and has assisted in the funding of the Blowing Rocks preserve project, that is working to restore a section of delicate coastline in central Florida. Finally, Darden is helping to lead the way in helping to reduce the overfishing of lobster and wild fish species, and promoting new sustainable seafood products that improve the overall long term health of the world's increasingly fragile fisheries. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend Darden on its vision and commitment to building stronger communities through its ``best of class'' restaurant operations, its commitment to the environment and sustainability practices, and its continued investment in my community and thousands of communities across the country.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill including prohibitions on federal funds and other activities with respect to certain organizations. The intent of Congress with respect to those provisions is as follows: The purpose of this bill is to cleanse federal contracting and grant-making, completely and permanently. The purpose is to put an end to the invidious practice of rewarding those who steal taxpayer money by giving them more taxpayer money. The bill imposes, and is intended to impose, a corporate death penalty on contractors who fall within the scope of its prohibitions. This is remedial legislation. The primary intention is not merely to penalize such organization, since other laws perform that function. Rather, the intention is to protect the Government and the taxpayers from losses in the future, and to deter misconduct on the part of federal fund recipients. The intention of deterrence, in particular, requires that these prohibitions be construed broadly, and enforced strictly. By this bill, Congress intends to exercise the full extent of its Constitutional authority, both express and implied. This includes, but is not limited to, Congress's express authority under the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the heading on the part of the bill containing these provisions, it is not Congress's intent that these prohibitions apply only to organizations that have been indicted. Rather, Congress intends that the prohibitions apply to all ``covered organizations,'' as defined in the bill. With respect to the prohibitions set forth in paragraph (a), Congress intends that these prohibitions be automatic and permanent. In this context, ``automatic'' means not subject to alleviation by administrative action. Regarding such prohibitions, Congress intends to substitute a ``per se'' rule in place of any rule requiring a balancing of factors, or exercise of discretion or judgment, to the full extent permitted for Congress by the U.S. Constitution. ``Permanent'' means lasting for the entire time that the organization remains in existence. If a principal, or principals, of a covered organization form(s) or attempt(s) to form a new organization, then that new organization may be deemed, through administrative action, to be a covered organization. ``Principal'' means an officer, a director, or an owner of at least five percent of the shares of a covered organization. It is the intent of Congress that any organization seeking or receiving a federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, any other form of agreement, federal funds, or promotion by a Federal employee or contractor shall certify, both when seeking and when receiving such a benefit, that the organization is not a covered organization as that term is defined in this bill. Any organization falsely making such a certification shall be deemed a covered organization (and, in fact, already is one), and shall be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 or any similar provision in the Criminal Code. Any individual making such a false certification on behalf of a covered organization shall be similarly liable. Congress strongly recommends to federal prosecutors that they execute their prosecutorial discretion in a manner that holds such organizations and individuals accountable, to the fullest extent permitted by law. Congress intends that all covered organizations be added to the ``Excluded Parties'' list maintained by the Federal Government, with a prescribed duration on that list of ``permanent.'' Whenever the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) learns or has reason to believe that an organization is a covered organization, it shall be the duty of DOJ to apprise the debarring officials of all relevant federal agencies of such information. Congress intends that any person or organization shall have standing to request that any debarring official shall identify an organization as a covered organization, and add that organization to the ``Excluded Parties'' list. Congress also intends that the contention that any federal offeror or contractor is a covered organization is a contention that is a valid basis for a bid protest. Such a contention may be asserted at the Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and any other tribunal with bid protest authority. The term ``covered organization'' includes parent companies, subsidiaries and subsidiaries of parent companies of a covered organization. Such affiliation is to be determined by legal ownership of at least 50%. The term ``organization'' in paragraph (a) means only a covered organization. The enumerated prohibitions apply to covered organizations only. In subparagraph (a)(1), the term ``other form of agreement'' includes, but is not limited to, the execution of contract options, the award of task orders, and any other form of action that establishes or increases the legal rights of any federal contractor or grantee. In subparagraph (a)(2), the term ``[n]o Federal funds in any other form may be provided'' shall mean that all contracts and grants that have been awarded to a covered organization with a remaining duration of more than one year on the date of enactment shall, within that one-year period, be terminated for the convenience of the Government. In subparagraph (b)(1) of the prohibitions, Congress recognizes that the denial of liberty or property on the basis of an indictment, without conviction, raises Constitutional due process issues. If it is determined that such denial is unconstitutional, or otherwise contrary to law, then it is the intent of Congress that subparagraph (b)(1) be held void, but that the remainder of the prohibitions remain intact and enforceable. In subparagraph (b)(3) of the prohibitions, it is the intent of Congress that this subparagraph be construed expansively. The term ``Federal or State regulatory agency'' shall include any agency authorized by law to issue regulations, whether or not such regulations have been issued. For instance, the term includes, but is not limited to, the U.S. Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Labor. The term ``filed a fraudulent form'' includes, but is not limited to, actions that would establish liability under 18 U.S.C. 1001 or 31 U.S.C. 3729. A conviction or judgment under these laws, or any similar law, is sufficient per se to establish that an organization is a covered organization. The term ``filed a fraudulent form'' is derived in part from a report dated July 23, 2009 and issued by the Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Page five of that report discusses allegations, not resulting in a conviction or judgment, that ``ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Labor.'' The report states that: ``All of these fraudulent acts would constitute a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 by presenting false documents to the United States government.'' A fortiori, any acts that actually do (not merely ``would'') constitute such a violation, or a violation of similar provisions such as those appearing in 31 U.S.C. 3729, as determined by a conviction or judgment, shall per se constitute the ``fil[ing] of a fraudulent form'' within the meaning of these prohibitions. As the Ranking Member's report describes, however, the term ``filed a fraudulent form'' extends to all organizations that have filed such a form, whether or not such a filing has resulted in a conviction or judgment. The Ranking Member issued a statement yesterday, which said: ``For far too long, recipients of federal dollars have been given free reign [sic] and some have acted in a reckless and cavalier way and whether it be ACORN or anyone else--abuse and fraud will not be tolerated.'' He added, ``frankly, I don't know how anyone can successfully argue [that] those who actually perpetrate fraud and misuse taxpayer dollars should not be'' subject to these prohibitions. The term ``form'' is to be construed broadly. It includes all communications, in any form or format, which include any information required by law. For instance, a request for payment under a cost reimbursement contract that includes a statement of incurred costs is a ``form'' within the meaning of subparagraph (b)(3), because (among other reasons) such a statement is required by law. Whenever the Government finds that such a request is excessive, and reduces it, then this means that the form that was filed was fraudulent, unless the contractor possessed no information whatsoever that did allow or should have allowed the contractor to know that the form was excessive. No proof of specific intent to defraud is required. It is the intent of Congress that the term ``form'' include, but not be limited to, the term ``claim'' under 18 U.S.C. 287, the terms ``claim,'' ``record'' and ``statement'' in 31 U.S.C. 3729, and the terms ``statement,'' ``representation'' and ``entry'' under 10 U.S.C. 1001. In all administrative or judicial proceedings regarding whether a party has ``filed a fraudulent form,'' in cases based on a conviction or judgment, the inquiry shall be limited to whether there is any evidence in the record on which the finder of fact could have determined that the organization filed a fraudulent form. Under no circumstances shall the burden of proof be anything beyond ``adequate evidence'' in administrative proceedings, or ``support by any evidence in the record'' in judicial proceedings, when such judicial review of such administrative action is allowable at all. It is the intent of Congress that administrative action to add an organization to the ``Excluded Parties'' list is ministerial. For that reason, and otherwise, such administrative action is committed to agency discretion under 5 U.S.C. 702(a)(1). In all judicial proceedings, it is the intent of Congress that the prohibitions apply to an organization that has been found to be a covered organization unless and until a final judgment has been entered in favor of the organization. Specifically, it is the intent of Congress that in determining whether the organization should be granted interim relief in such proceedings, the greatest weight be the public interest in having the Government issue contracts and grants only to organizations with unquestioned integrity. It is the intention of Congress that the term ``covered organization'' apply to all organizations qualifying within the definitions of subparagraphs (b)(1) through (b)(4), without regard to when the acts establishing such qualification occurred. Specifically, it is not the intent of Congress that such acts be limited to acts following enactment of these prohibitions. If, for instance, an organization filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency in 2006, that organization is a covered organization as of the date of enactment, and subject to all prohibitions from the date of enactment onward. Regarding paragraph c, if it shall be ruled or held that this provision, or any other provision in these prohibitions, is a bill of attainder, or constitutionally infirm for any other reason, it is the intent of Congress that these prohibitions nevertheless apply to all covered organizations for which these prohibitions are not a bill of attainder, or constitutionally infirm. Regarding paragraph (d) of the prohibitions, the revision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) shall include the revisions set forth above, including but not limited to revision of Parts 3, 9, 15 and 33 of the FAR.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, I read something that makes me wish I had written it or said it. I had that experience recently, reading Nick Kristof's column in The New York Times. It's just like Abraham Lincoln said during the Gettysburg Address, I read something like this and I say, This is far beyond my poor power to add or detract. So I would like to read it to you, I would like to share it with you and the other Members of the House because it so well captures what's important in the current health care debate. He wrote as follows: In the debate over health care, here's an inequity to ponder: Nikki White would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber. Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus erythematosus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance. In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine, notes T.R. Reid in his important and powerful new book, ``The Healing of America.'' Some 80 percent of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor's care, lupus should be manageable. Indeed, if Nikki had been a felon, the problem could have been averted, because the courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care. As Mr. Reid recounts, Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her preexisting condition. She spent months painfully writing letters to anyone she thought might be able to help. She fought tenaciously for her life. Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent 6 months in critical care. ``When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her,'' her stepfather, Tony Deal, told me. ``But that's not when she needed the care.'' By then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. ``Nikki didn't die from lupus,'' her doctor, Amylyn Crawford, told Mr. Reid. ``Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system.'' ``She fell through the cracks,'' Nikki's mother, Gail Deal, told me grimly. ``When you bury a child, it's the worst thing in the world. You never recover.'' We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour. That's how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. Over a year, that amounts to 18,000 American deaths. After al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans 8 years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again. Yet every 2 months, that many people die because of our failure to provide universal insurance--and yet many Members of Congress want us to do nothing? Mr. Reid's book is a rich tour of health care around the world. Because he has a bum shoulder, he asked doctors in many countries to examine it and make recommendations. His American orthopedist recommended a titanium shoulder replacement that would cost tens of thousands of dollars and might or might not help. Specialists in other countries warned that a sore shoulder didn't justify the risks of such major surgery, although some said it would be available free if Mr. Reid insisted. Instead, they offered physical therapy, acupuncture, and other cheap and noninvasive alternatives, some of which worked pretty well. That's a window into the flaws in our health care system: we offer titanium shoulder replacements for those who don't really need them, but we let 32-year-old women die if they lose their health insurance. No wonder we spend so much on medical care, and yet have some health care statistics that are worse than Slovenia's. My suggestion for anyone in Nikki's situation: commit a crime and get locked up. In Washington State, a 20-year-old inmate named Melissa Matthews chose to turn down parole and stay in prison because that was the only way she could get treatment for her cervical cancer. ``If I'm out, I'm going to die from this cancer,'' she told a television station. This has to end. As Mr. Kristof wrote: Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32- year-old woman die because she can't get health insurance? Is that really us? [September 13, 2009] The Body Count at Home (By Nicholas D. Kristof) In the debate over health care, here's an inequity to ponder: Nikki White would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber. Nikki was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. But she had systemic lupus erythematosus, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 and gradually left her too sick to work. And once she lost her job, she lost her health insurance. In any other rich country, Nikki probably would have been fine, notes T. R. Reid in his important and powerful new book, ``The Healing of America.'' Some 8o percent of lupus patients in the United States live a normal life span. Under a doctor's care, lupus should be manageable. Indeed, if Nikki had been a felon, the problem could have been averted, because courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care. As Mr. Reid recounts, Nikki tried everything to get medical care, but no insurance company would accept someone with her preexisting condition. She spent months painfully writing letters to anyone she thought might be able to help. She fought tenaciously for her life. Finally, Nikki collapsed at her home in Tennessee and was rushed to a hospital emergency room, which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. Since money was no longer an issue, the hospital performed 25 emergency surgeries on Nikki, and she spent six months in critical care. ``When Nikki showed up at the emergency room, she received the best of care, and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her,'' her step-father, Tony Deal, told me. ``But that's not when she needed the care.'' By then it was too late. In 2006, Nikki White died at age 32. ``Nikki didn't die from lupus,'' her doctor, Amylyn Crawford, told Mr. Reid. ``Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system.'' ``She fell through the cracks,'' Nikki's mother, Gail Deal, told me grimly. ``When you bury a child, it's the worst thing in the world. You never recover.'' We now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. If we let that chance slip away, there will be another Nikki dying every half-hour. That's how often someone dies in America because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. Over a year, that amounts to 18,000 American deaths. After Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans, eight years ago on Friday, we went to war and spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that this would not happen again. Yet every two months, that many people die because of our failure to provide universal insurance--and yet many members of Congress want us to do nothing? Mr. Reid's book is a rich tour of health care around the world. Because he has a bum shoulder, he asked doctors in many countries to examine it and make recommendations. His American orthopedist recommended a titanium shoulder replacement that would cost tens of thousands of dollars and might or might not help. Specialists in other countries warned that a sore shoulder didn't justify the risks of such major surgery, although some said it would be available free if Mr. Reid insisted. Instead, they offered physical therapy, acupuncture and other cheap and noninvasive alternatives, some of which worked pretty well. That's a window into the flaws in our health care system: we offer titanium shoulder replacements for those who don't really need them, but we let 32-year-old women die if they lose their health insurance. No wonder we spend so much on medical care, and yet have some health care statistics that are worse than Slovenia's. My suggestion for anyone in Nikki's situation: commit a crime and get locked up. In Washington State, a 20-year-old inmate named Melissa Matthews chose to turn down parole and stay in prison because that was the only way she could get treatment for her cervical cancer. ``If I'm out, I'm going to die from this cancer,'' she told a television station. Mr. and Mrs. Deal say they are speaking out because Nikki wouldn't want anyone to endure what she did. ``Nikki was a college-educated, middle-class woman, and if it could happen to her, it can happen to anyone,'' Mr. Deal said. ``This should not be happening in our country.'' Struggling to get out the words, Mrs. Deal added: ``The loss of a child is the greatest hurt anyone will ever suffer. Because of the circumstances she endured with the health care system, I lost my daughter.'' Complex arguments are being batted around in this health care debate, but the central issue isn't technical but moral. The first question is simply this: Do we wish to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can't get health insurance? Is that really us?

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, it was announced earlier today that there will be a hearing on H.R. 1207, the bill to audit the Federal Reserve Bank. This will be the first independent audit in the Federal Reserve's 96-year history, and it's long overdue. Months ago I asked the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Who received the $1 trillion in funds that the Federal Reserve has handed out to domestic institutions? He said, I'm not going to tell you. Then more recently to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, I asked him, Who received the half trillion, and we're talking about $500 billion, that the Federal Reserve handed over to foreign central banks? Whom did they disseminate that money to? And he said, I don't know. Half a trillion dollars and he doesn't know. It's long overdue. We need to audit the Federal Reserve, and I am happy to say that we're going to have a hearing on that very soon.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to honor the United States Constitution. Earlier today, the House unanimously passed my bill, House Resolution 686, the Teach the Constitution Week resolution. Congressman Ron Paul and I combined our efforts on this important legislation because society is losing its knowledge of our Nation's most fundamental principles. The Constitution lays out the tenets of our Republic, and House Resolution 686 specifically proposes that seniors in high school across the Nation be taught about the Constitution at the start of their senior year in high school for 1 week. Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is the highest law of the land. If we're not teaching our children about a document so fundamental to our Nation's past, present and future, then what are we teaching them? Too many Americans have no real understanding of the principles of this historic document. More teenagers can name the judges of American Idol and more teenagers can name the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of our government. This is a true disservice to our Nation and its citizens, and this is the reason why we should promote a better understanding of the Constitution on the part of our Nation's youth. The resolution also encourages seniors to petition the government on an issue of personal importance to them to demonstrate their understanding of their rights and responsibilities as citizens of the United States. They can write letters, organize a trip to Washington, D.C., to see Congress in action, or call their Representatives to voice their opinions about bills and laws in which they have an interest. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased to say that earlier this afternoon, the House of Representatives passed House Resolution 686, just 3 days before we celebrate Constitution Day, which marks the 222nd anniversary of the original signing of the U.S. Constitution by members of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787. I want to thank the 222 Representatives who signed on as cosponsors of this bipartisan bill. I hope that it will help to reinforce the great importance of the U.S. Constitution to our Nation.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a point regarding H.R. 3269, the Corporate and Financial Institution Compensation Fairness Act of 2009. On page 17, the bill states ``No regulation promulgated pursuant to this section shall require the recovery of incentive based compensation under compensation arrangements in effect on the date of enactment of this Act provided such compensation agreements are for a period of no more than 24 months.'' The words ``this section'' are intended to mean the fourth section of H.R. 3269, not the section of the U.S. Code in which this provision may be found. In addition, I would like to add into the Record this important statement by Leo Hindery published in the Washington Note, because it pertains to this bill. President Obama was absolutely right a couple of weeks ago when he demanded that the compensation of the executives, managers and traders at the failed financial institutions that received bail-out cash be scrutinized by a new ``oversight council''. He was right because these are the people who saddled the rest of us with a staggering $2.8 billion or more of trading and credit losses, and yet wanted to be paid as if everything was just swell. But he and especially his advisers were wrong not to impose specific limits on executive compensation, rather than (mostly) just guidelines. They were especially wrong not to enact permanent limits that apply to all regulated financial institutions and all public companies. The evidence is clear that excessive executive and management compensation lies at the root of all corporate crimes and misbehavior, of most of corporate America's inattention to creating and preserving high-quality domestic jobs and fair overall employee compensation, and of almost all of the recent massive trading and credit losses. In his speech, Obama also said that government's ``role is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach''. He absolutely should have added that its role is also to ``ensure wealth's fair and equitable distribution''. For the 35 years following the end of the second world war, CEOs generally viewed responsible and fair business behavior as a critical component of the American dream. And during all those years, and in fact during most of the past century, corporate leaders in the US earned 20 to 30 times as much as their average employees. Even today, the ratio of chief executive pay to average employee earnings in all other main developed countries has remained near this level. The ratio is still only about 22 times in Britain, 20 times in Canada and 11 times in Japan. Beginning in the 1990s, however, many US executives, with the complicity of their boards, began to treat management as a separate constituency, often the primary one. Suddenly, fair executive compensation was abandoned in hundreds of corporations and financial institutions. In America now, the average public company chief executive earns an almost unbelievable 400 times what his average employee makes, and his officers and senior managers aren't far behind in their own compensation. And now we know that executives and senior managers in the financial services industry drink just as heartily from the same frothy trough. Obama and Congress need to enact three changes in executive and management compensation practices, not just hope, as one of his senior advisors recently said, that some (not even all) corporations will voluntarily ``assess risk induced by [their] compensation practices''. First, Congress needs immediately to grant public shareholders the right to call shareholders' meetings, to vote out the current board and to pass binding (not simply advisory) votes on executive compensation. Second, Congress should establish, for all public companies, a ceiling on individual executive compensation as a reasonable multiple of average employee compensation--say, 35 times--and then penalize through tax policies those companies that elect to pay anyone in excess of this multiple. Third, Congress should empower the Treasury to oversee the compensation practices of any entity that is regulated, whether or not it currently relies on government guarantees. This should apply to employees at the individual trader level, too.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 679 and 680, I missed these votes unavoidably because of a meeting with the White House Chief of Staff at the White House, and heavy traffic from the White House to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on 679 and ``aye'' on 680.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Think about what this health care bill will do for you if you are over 65 years old, or if you love somebody who is over 65 years old. If you are over 65, or you love someone who is over 65, a mother or father, then take a minute to think about that. Here is what it will do for you: First of all, it will dramatically reduce--and in most cases eliminate--copayments for you. That's right, for you. Because the Democrats understand that a $10 or $20 or $50 copayment, that is a lot of money for you. And if it keeps you from going to the doctor when you need to get help, when you need medical care, that's a shame, it shouldn't happen. So this bill takes care of that. The second thing that the bill does for you is that it eliminates the doughnut hole, that's right, the doughnut hole that torments people into choosing between paying for their rent or paying for the medicine that they need to stay alive. That will no longer be true. The doughnut hole is eliminated. This bill is good for you if you are 65 or over; it is good for your mother or your father if you're not. That matters a lot because the Democrats care about you.

Mr. GRAYSON

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

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to note that what the accomplishment was here was to make America number one in space exploration, and I look forward to the time when we are number one in health care, when we are number one in education, when we are number one in meeting our human needs and making a 21st-century workforce. The thing that inspired people from President Kennedy's words was the desire to be number one, and that's something that we can and will accomplish, not only in this particular part of human endeavor but across the board.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we mark and celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon on July 20, 1969. On that date, an 11-year-old boy stayed in a hotel room in San Juan, Puerto Rico, all day long--while his parents went to St. Thomas with his sister--and watched in awe to see mankind take this enormous step forward. That 11-year-old boy was me. And if somebody had said to me at the time, One day you will be standing in Congress and celebrating this day, marking this day, I would have said what every other 11-year-old boy would say, Oh, come on. That's ridiculous. But here we are celebrating this day, marking this day explaining what it means to all of us in conveying a Congressional Gold Medal to Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, and John Glenn, the first American--and the third human being--to orbit the Earth. Certainly this was the greatest technological achievement of any time, anywhere on this planet by human beings. But for many of us, it was more than that. For many of us it was the most important moment of our lives. Think about it. What would you choose as the most important moment of your life? For some of us it would be the fall of the Berlin Wall; for others, it might be the election of Nelson Mandela to lead South Africa and end apartheid in that country; and for sure for others it would mean the election of Barack Obama as the first black President of the United States. But for many of us, it would mean that time, 40 years ago today, when men landed on the Moon and for the first time, and the only time, in our history visited our celestial neighbor. That's exciting, and it's good to look back on that time and to ask ourselves what led to that moment. Everybody attributes that moment to President Kennedy, the leader of the new frontier. President Kennedy used these words to spur us to take this action. He said as follows: ``We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win. ``Many years ago, the great British Explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. ``He said, `Because it is there.' Well, space is there,'' Kennedy told us, ``and we're going to climb it, and the Moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. ``And, therefore, as we set sail,'' Kennedy said, ``we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.'' That's what President Kennedy said, that this was the greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked, and he was right. These astronauts, these brave three, they crossed dead space for almost a quarter of 1 million miles. They landed with less than 25 seconds of fuel remaining when they finally reached the Moon, and when they reached that Moon, they were only there for 21\1/2\ hours. Their moonwalk was only 2 hours and 37 minutes. They brought back a mere 47 pounds of Moon rock, but they inspired everyone on this planet. One- fifth of all of this planet was watching at that moment on TV. One out of every five human beings. That's pretty good ratings, Mr. Speaker. And when the landing occurred, what we heard was the following: ``The Eagle has landed.'' The eagle meaning the American eagle, because this was an assertion of our superiority as a Nation, our fortitude, our determination, our discipline, and our resourcefulness. That's what led us across that deep space in only 8 years from the first time when President Kennedy set forth this goal to the time that we actually landed on the Moon. ``The Eagle has landed.'' The American eagle has landed. But then during the moonwalk, we heard another theme. When Mr. Armstrong first put his foot down on the Moon, when Neil Armstrong put his foot down on the Moon he said the following: ``One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' Not just Americans, but all mankind. And when these brave explorers left behind their inscription, the inscription said something very important: ``We came in peace, for all mankind.'' And when Buzz Aldrin was returning, the day before the flight actually landed back on the Earth, he said the following: ``This stands as a symbol of the insatiable curiosity of all mankind to explore the unknown.'' So on that day 40 years ago we learned a lot about ourselves. We learned a lot about what kind of people human beings really are. The first thing we learned is that in our heart we are explorers. We have that spark to see what's on the other side of that hill and then go and find it, and that spark is what led us 50,000 years ago to cross as far as Australia all the way from Africa. And 15,000 years ago one of my ancestors went as far as eastern Siberia in the midst of the Ice Age. And now, today, we see it's possible to explore this whole planet, and that just makes us want to explore other areas as well. I have visited 175 countries myself. I have that urge to see, to explore, to look beyond the next hill, and it's what makes us human beings. Wolves howl at the Moon; human beings go there. And we've also learned that these challenges that we pose for ourselves, these goals that we have for ourselves, we reap rewards from just seeking those goals, from pursuing those goals. In this case, NASA developed integrated circuits which led to the modern computer age. They developed computer-directed machining, which is used throughout manufacturing today, including in computers. And they developed fuel cells, which could very well be the key to our energy future. And all of that was done through the Apollo program for less than $150 billion in today's money, which is actually less than, in many cases, the costs of the war in Iraq for 1 year. We've also learned something else important about it. When we visited the Moon, we looked back on the Earth, and we have in that day 40 years ago the roots of the environmental movement. Earth Day was first celebrated barely 9 months later on April 22, 1970, because when we went to the Moon and we looked back on the Earth, we saw ourselves. We recognized how fragile the Earth really is. And Joni Mitchell best captured that in a song that she sang, these words from her song, ``Refuge of the Roads.'' She wrote: ``In a highway service station, over the month of June was a photograph of the Earth, taken coming back from the Moon. ``And you couldn't see the city, on that marbled bowling ball, or a forest, or a highway, or me here least of all.'' And so we recognize in that moment, when we looked at the entire Earth, the entire planet, we didn't see individuals, we saw all of us, and it created a newfound respect for the environment. But beyond that, we reached the realization that we're only beginning to appreciate right now 40 years later, and that realization is this. We are one planet; we are one people. This is not a planet of blacks versus whites; we are one. This is not a planet of men versus women; we are one. This is not a planet of the young versus the old; we are one. We are one species, one set of human beings, one people, proud of our accomplishments, this above all, to visit the Moon. And when we return to the Moon, as we're scheduled to do 10 years from now, I hope that we'll say not just, ``One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,'' but I hope we'll say, ``Today the Moon, tomorrow the stars.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I rise to bring H.R. 1675, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2009, up for consideration. I am happy to support H.R. 1675 which would reauthorize and reform section 811 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In doing so, this bill will allow for Federal funds to be used to leverage additional funding to build more housing units for low-income, disabled individuals. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1675) to amend section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to improve the program under such section for supportive housing for persons with disabilities.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, amendment 106 to the Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 2647, requires a justification for the use of factors other than cost or price as predominant factors in evaluating competitive proposals for defense procurement contracts. The intent of this provision is to mandate that officials of the Department of Defense weight cost or price as the predominant factor in solicitations for defense procurement contracts, with only occasional and well-justified exceptions. This amendment requires quantification of the relative weight of evaluation factors in the evaluation scheme, insofar as this is necessary to ensure compliance with the amendment. The purposes of this amendment are two-fold. First, the use of cost or price as the predominant evaluation factor will result more frequently in the selection of the low-cost or a lower-cost offeror, which will save the Government money. Second, the use of cost or price as the predominant evaluation factor will encourage and incentivize offerors to submit ``lean'' proposals that will save the Government money. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently criticized military systems that ``have grown ever more baroque, have become ever more costly, are taking longer to build, and are being fielded in ever-dwindling quantities.'' This amendment combats that trend. Another recent reminder of the risk of ``gold plating'' comes from the ``Marine One'' Presidential helicopter procurement program. It would be difficult to identify any commercial helicopter that costs as much as $40 million, but the VH-71 helicopters being purchased are likely to cost ten times that much. This is more than the cost of the Boeing 747s employed in the ``Air Force One'' program, even when that cost is adjusted for inflation. Agencies may avoid the use of cost or price as predominant factors in solicitations only if the procurement officer or agency head determines that employing cost or price as predominant factors would-- (1) Materially increase the risk of failure of the mission or missions in which the item being procured will be employed, in an ascertainable manner specific to the mission or missions involved; (2) Demonstrably threaten the safety or health of members of the Armed Forces or persons in their custody or care; (3) Result in foreseeable and quantifiable additional defense expenditures outside the context of the procurement at hand that exceed any savings expected from employing cost or price as predominant factors; (4) Deprive the Government of post-performance rights or property, such as warranties or intellectual property, the quantifiable value of which exceeds any savings expected from employing cost or price as predominant factors; or (5) Violate an international agreement. Justifications that are not satisfactory include: (1) Preexisting law, other than international agreements; (2) A generalized preference for quality, reliability, experience or high performance; (3) Evolving technical requirements; (4) Concerns about contractor responsibility; and (5) Any other reason not enumerated as a valid justification above. The justification required by this provision generally should follow the same procedures as the justifications required for other than full and open competition, as currently set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation sections 6.303 and 6.304. In all cases in which extrinsic savings or risks are the justification, they shall be described in detail, with a description of how they were derived.

Mr. GRAYSON

Mr. GRAYSON. I thank the chairman for his support of our efforts to ensure that our hurricane research efforts are adequately supported.

Mr. GRAYSON. I rise to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman. My attention today is to draw attention to the need for further research and work concerning the effect of ongoing changes in climate and on the frequency and intensity and effects of hurricanes. As you know, damages from hurricanes--in terms of human lives, infrastructure, and property--have grown in scope and cost; and it is critical that we continue to make progress in furthering our understanding of the science behind hurricanes. Doing so will ultimately help vulnerable communities in my district, in Florida, and elsewhere in the United States prepare for and reduce the impacts from hurricanes. I ask that a portion of the allowance value in H.R. 2454 be directed towards research on hurricanes at a new $50 million National Hurricane Research Center in my district in Orlando. The National Hurricane Research Center in Orlando will be a worldwide center of expertise in the 21st-century science of meteorology. In a world already affected by global warming, it will help to develop both short-range and long-range hurricane forecasting, conduct practical research on mitigation of hurricane damage, disseminate to the public realtime information on hurricanes----

Mr. GRAYSON. Advise policymakers and the public, and expand knowledge on what can and should be done to impact the frequency, course, and human and property consequences of hurricanes.

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand that H.R. 2454 includes provisions directing allowance value towards State adaptation. I hope that we will be able to work together as this bill moves forward to make certain that hurricane research receives full funding and that we are able to ensure that the work of the National Hurricane Research Center will be supported.