Latest Debates in Congress

HIV/AIDS in America
Should Congress Pass the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act?

The United States has made significant progress in its twodecade battle against AIDS. Powerful new drug combinations, known as “cocktails,” have extended the lives of those infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, resulting in fewer deaths.

Many challenges remain, however. Although the decrease in the number of AIDS deaths continues, the number of U.S. diagnoses increased 8 percent from 2000 to 2004.

The Federal law providing help for low-income HIV/ AIDS patients is the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act.First passed in 1990, the Act has enjoyed wide bipartisan support in Congress.

The Government Accountability Office recently recommended that Congress revise the law to provide more equitable distribution of funds throughout the country and to require that the government start counting people who are HIV-positive as well as those who have AIDS.

With the Ryan White CARE Act overdue for reauthorization, legislation was introduced in the 109th Congress that would change the allocation formula to include HIV as well as AIDS, thus reducing payments to States with large cities and redirecting the money to other areas with rising numbers of cases.

Supporters of the measure argue that with HIV/AIDS no longer as localized in cities as it was two decades ago, rural areas are getting the short end of the stick.

Opponents insist that urban centers still bear the brunt of the disease and should not lose funding.

As in previous years, the challenge for Congress in reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act is to provide sufficient resources to keep pace with growing needs, while making modifications that respond to the shifting nature of the epidemic.

Voting Integrity
Are Paper Trails a Solution to Disputed Election Results?

After the debacle of the disputed 2000 presidential election results — ultimately settled by the U.S. Supreme Court — it became clear that reforms were needed to ensure that voters could easily cast ballots for the candidates of their choice and that their votes would be counted. Congress responded in 2002 with passage of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

The new law did not mandate a uniform voting system, but it did impose national standards, banning lever machines and punch cards to prevent future ambiguity about “hanging chads” and encouraging the use of electronic voting technology.

The most widely installed system — and the only completely computerized one — is the direct recording electronic voting machine, or DRE. The system records votes directly onto computer memory devices, and because the machines are not required to produce a voter-verified paper trail, voters see only a digital representation of their completed ballots.

In recent years, a raging controversy has erupted between computer scientists and voting rights activists, who argue that electronic voting machines are vulnerable to manipulation, and machine vendors and election officials, who say the systems are safe.

In an effort to quell the controversy, and restore public trust in the outcome of elections and the process generally, Representative Rush Holt (NJ-D) introduced legislation (H.R. 550) requiring that DREs provide a paper record that would mirror the electronic image of a completed ballot so that voters could verify their choices before leaving the polling place.

Supporters of such legislation maintain that, with the use of DREs, voters have no way of knowing whether their votes are recorded accurately.

Opponents of the bill contend that even voting systems backed up by paper records have problems, citing cases of jammed printers and incompetent poll workers to prove their point.

Despite the passage of HAVA, many fear that the country is facing another national election with its voting problems unremedied. The only certainty is that the process will continue to evolve as America strives for a fair and secure, if imperfect, system in which voters have confidence.

Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling
Should the House Pass H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act?

In his January 2006 State of the Union message to Congress, President George W. Bush pronounced that the United States was "addicted to oil." In fact, the country uses 20.6 million barrels of petroleum products each day — about one-fourth of global consumption. Over the next quarter-century, world oil demand is expected to rise by about 50 percent because of population growth and the consumerism that comes with it.

About 20 percent of domestic oil production and 27 percent of domestic natural gas production takes place offshore. However, in 1981, Congress acted to protect America’s coasts, beaches, and maritime ecosystems by prohibiting oil and gas leasing and drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), except for the Gulf of Mexico and some waters off Alaska. The OCS is defined by current law as the submerged lands that extend between three and approximately 690 geographical miles seaward of the U.S. coastline.

The current focus in Congress is on how much access oil and gas companies should have to shallow, close-in coastal areas. Both the House and Senate have passed bills opening up some of the protected OCS areas to drilling for the first time in 25 years.

Because of the sharp contrasts between the House and Senate bills, efforts to reach a compromise are expected to be contentious. While lawmakers might still agree on legislation that promotes offshore drilling in a way that reduces gasoline prices while protecting the environment, it seems likely that this complicated issue will be left for a new Congress to take up next year.

Compulsory National Service
Should the All-Volunteer Force Be Replaced by Universal, Mandatory National Service?

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country,” John F. Kennedy famously challenged Americans in his 1961 inaugural address. Shortly thereafter, Congress authorized the Peace Corps, designed to promote peace and goodwill through volunteer work in developing countries. Since then, politicians of all stripes have continued to extol the virtues of service.

Community service programs are especially valued as opportunities for young Americans of different ethnic and class backgrounds to work side by side for a common purpose.

The other avenue for such interaction is military service; however, the enlisted ranks of today’s armed forces are disproportionately represented by poor and rural Americans and ethnic minorities. Such disparities have revived speculation about the reinstatement of the draft.

Those who favor such mandatory service argue that it would restore the principle of shared sacrifice, narrow the gap between the military and “spectator citizens,” and lead to increased civic participation and awareness of public affairs.

Opponents counter that even with compulsory service, the most vulnerable in society would be hit the hardest, as elites would learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat, as in the past. The debate illustrates the ongoing tension between the democratic values of individual liberty and the duty of citizens to help sustain the benefits of a free society.

Federal Student Aid
Should the House Pass H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act?

The cost of a college education is becoming increasingly prohibitive for many American families. Over the last 10 years, average tuition and fees, adjusted for inflation, grew by 36 percent in private four-year institutions and by 51 percent in public four-year institutions, according to the College Board. The American Council on Education found that from 1993 through 2004, student loan volume increased from $19.89 billion to $50.5 billion. A typical borrower has $17,500 of student loan debt after graduating from college.

Many fear that this trend has serious consequences for America’s leadership in the global economy, with the Nation losing its competitive edge over such developing countries as China and India, especially in math and science, which fewer students — minorities and women, in particular — are pursuing.

The law authorizing funds for Federal student aid is the Higher Education Act (HEA).

Comprehensive changes to the student loan system have been included in the House and Senate HEA reauthorization measures. H.R. 609, which passed the House on March 30, 2006, puts pressure on colleges to refrain from steep tuition increases and requires schools to provide clear information about their costs, which the Education Department would make available to the public.

The bill also expands Pell Grants, making them available throughout the year. The House vote split along party lines, with Democrats and Republicans disagreeing on how the Federal Government should help people deal with rising tuition costs.

Supporters of the bill maintain that it strengthens the Pell Grant program, gives consumers more information about what they are getting for their money, and supports teacher recruitment and retention.

Opponents counter that the bill, along with the budget cuts contained in the Deficit Reduction Act, makes higher education less, not more, attainable.

With the House so sharply divided on these issues, and with the Senate yet to act on its higher education bill, the prospect of a quick resolution is remote. Instead, Congress may temporarily extend the current HEA authorization once again as it pursues elusive common ground on this contentious and far-reaching issue.

Lobbying Reform
Does the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act Provide for Sufficient Reforms?

Lobbying — the process of petitioning government to influence public policy — is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Yet, the profession of lobbying has always been viewed with suspicion, and the level of influence a lobbyist exerts tends to be directly proportional to the resources of the interest group the lobbyist represents.

The major law currently governing lobbying is the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) of 1995. The LDA replaced much of the earlier patchwork of laws with a single, uniform statute, and established criteria for determining whether an organization or firm should register its employees as lobbyists.

It soon became apparent, however, that the law lacked adequate disclosure and enforcement mechanisms, and that the “revolving door” phenomenon of former public officials becoming lobbyists and exerting undue influence over the process was continuing unabated.

Historically, lawmakers have tackled lobbying and ethics reform following embarrassing scandals. Congress was recently prompted to take a new look at the integrity of its institutions by revelations regarding ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (CA-R). Both have been sentenced to prison terms.

Supporters say that Senate bill S. 2349 would bring greater transparency to lawmaking and would help restore Americans’ confidence in their elected representatives.

Opponents counter that the legislation lacks strong enforcement provisions and does not constitute real reform.

With lobbying reform legislation moving slowly and laboriously through the House, the chances for a final agreement on these issues seems remote. Most likely, it will be up to the public, perhaps provoked by news of additional scandals, to keep the pressure on their representatives to weaken the clout of the lobbying industry and restore balance to the legislative process.

Warrantless Government Surveillance
Is the National Security Agency’s Domestic Surveillance Program Legal?

Government surveillance of private citizens has been the subject of controversy since the early days of the Republic, but especially as new technologies have made it easier to discover personal information without performing a traditional physical search of properties or possessions.

When it came to electronic surveillance during wartime, however, there was general agreement that the President was inherently free of constitutional restraints. But in the 1970s, revelations of massive domestic spying abuses conducted over decades by government intelligence agencies - all in the name of national security - provoked an intense debate. Reviewing some of those abuses in 1972, the Supreme Court determined that warrantless wiretaps of domestic groups for national security reasons violated the Constitution.

To create a legal process for authorizing foreign intelligence wiretaps and define the power of the Executive Branch in conducting such surveillance, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. FISA barred electronic eavesdropping on persons within the United States without the approval of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but also provided for a 15-day grace period for retroactive warrants, when needed, and for warrantless wiretapping during times of war.

Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct warrantless surveillance of individuals who might be linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network or its affiliates without going through the FISA court. A national controversy ensued, with the Bush Administration engaging in an aggressive effort to defend the surveillance and some lawmakers, legal experts, and civil libertarians raising questions about its legality.

Health Savings Accounts
The Debate Over Consumer-Driven Care

Are Health Savings Accounts Good for the Health Care System?

Despite a century of innovations in medical procedures, technologies, and treatments, the Nation's health care system is in trouble. Annual health care costs (now about 16 percent of gross national product) are skyrocketing, the number of uninsured is at an all-time high, and public satisfaction is sinking.

A large portion of health care is paid for by employer-based insurance, and with medical costs outpacing inflation, American firms are scaling back on the coverage they offer. At the same time, the cost burden on the government is about to soar, as baby boomers retire and become eligible for Medicare and the needs of military service personnel increase. Based on current trends, Federal spending on health care could double as a share of the economy by 2020. President George W. Bush has made "consumer-directed" health savings plans a cornerstone of his health care policy. Health savings accounts, or HSAs, are designed to encourage people to cover a substantial portion of their health care costs by opening tax-free accounts from which they can pay routine medical expenses, deductibles, and copayments.

In his recent State of the Union Address to Congress, President Bush announced that he would send legislation to Capitol Hill to expand HSAs and make them "more available, more affordable, and more portable." In general, those who favor HSAs believe that the root cause of the Nation's health care crisis is that Americans are overinsured, and that feeling the sting of high prices will encourage them to be "smarter shoppers."

Opponents also warn that the President's approach will make many consumers less likely to seek routine preventive care that might stave off more serious problems later on. They also point out that most uninsured Americans are too poor to benefit from the tax deductibility of HSA contributions. At its core, the debate over health savings accounts is a philosophical one concerning how much health risk - and responsibility - Americans should bear on their own.

Roadless Forest Areas:
Balancing Preservation and Commercial Use

Should the Bush Administration Replace the Clinton Rule Governing Roadless Areas in National Forests?

Created by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1907, the National Forest System today consists of 155 national forests encompassing 192 million acres in 44 States - roughly 8.5 percent of the land area of the country.

National forests are managed by the Forest Service under the direction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unlike national parks, where harvesting or removal of resources is forbidden, national forests balance conservation and commercial interests through "multiple-use" management that includes recreation, livestock grazing, timber cutting, watershed protection, and preservation of fish and wildlife habitats.

With the growth of America's urban centers, national forests have become both more valuable and less pristine - leading to ongoing disputes over how these areas should be controlled and classified. One of the last acts of the Clinton Administration, in January 2001, was the finalization of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The rule prohibited, with some exceptions, timber harvesting and road construction within 58.5 million acres of inventoried roadless areas in national forests - about one-third of all National Forest System land.

The rule was immediately controversial. Shortly after President George W. Bush took office, the Department of Agriculture announced that it was postponing the rule's effective date, and the timber industry and others challenged it in court. In May 2005, the Administration repealed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, replacing it with new regulations, officially called the State Petitioning Rule. Under the Bush rule, governors are invited to petition the Secretary of Agriculture for the development of roadless areas that meet the specific needs of their States. If a petition is accepted, the Forest Service will work with the State to develop State-specific regulations.

A coalition of environmental groups recently sued the Bush Administration for overturning the 2001 roadless rule without following proper environmental protection procedures. There is also an ongoing effort in Congress to enact the original Clinton rule into law. The chances of such efforts succeeding in a Republican-dominated Congress are slim, especially since the only avenue available to the minority party is through the appropriations process, where attempts to prohibit funding for new construction in roadless areas so far have failed.

Re-examining Eminent Domain:
The Conflict Between Private Property and Economic Development

Should Congress Pass Legislation to Prevent Abuse of Eminent Domain?

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the government “eminent domain” over all property within the state, but places three important restrictions on that power. In taking private property, the government must exercise “due process of law,” acquire the property for “public use,” and provide “just compensation” to the owner.

The practice of eminent domain has been used — and abused — throughout U.S. history. When the railroads and many of the Nation’s highways were built, landowners were often told that their properties were condemned, given a dollar, and advised to go to court if they wanted their “just compensation.” Nevertheless, most eminent domain condemnations were for a clearly delineated public use, such as a road, park, or municipal building.

In the summer of 2005, the eminent domain debate culminated in the Supreme Court’s consideration of Kelo v. New London. The case involved a redevelopment plan for the City of New London, Connecticut, that was to include commercial, residential, and recreational uses. Connecticut law authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development, but some property owners challenged the city’s authority to exercise such power and charged that the proposed “takings” violated the Fifth Amendment.

On June 23, 2005, the Court decided, 5 to 4, in favor of New London, thereby giving local governments wide latitude to decide when a seizure is for a public purpose.

The controversial ruling sparked a backlash among citizens, who called for new laws limiting eminent domain to traditional uses.

Within a week of the ruling, Congress passed a resolution disagreeing with the Court’s decision, along with an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prevent the Federal Government from spending money to enforce the decision.

In November 2005, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation denying economic development funds to State and local governments that use eminent domain for private commercial development.

Opponents argue that cities need to retain the power of eminent domain to spur economic revitalization, reduce crime, and strengthen neighborhoods — and local governments should not be hamstrung in their ability to use it wisely.

It remains to be seen whether local officials will be more conservative or more aggressive in their use of eminent domain while Congress and the States sort out how and to what extent this powerful tool should be used in the future.

View 2005 Debates