[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 159 (Tuesday, December 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13503-S13506]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 2084. A bill to direct the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
issue regulations concerning the safety and labeling of portable
generators; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the last several years,
hundreds of Americans have died from the poisonous carbon monoxide
emitted from portable gas generators. Congress needs to step in and act
quickly to stop these needless deaths. That is why today I am
introducing the Portable Generator Safety Act.
As most of us know, portable generators are frequently used to
provide electricity during temporary power outages. These generators
use fuel-burning engines that give off poisonous carbon monoxide gas in
their exhaust.
Every hurricane season, news stories come from Florida and elsewhere
about people injured or killed by poisoning caused by portable gas
generators. From 1998 to 2003, the most recent year of official
statistics, at least 228 carbon monoxide poisoning deaths were reported
to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. At least one person was
killed and seven were hospitalized near Miami, FL, this fall after
being overcome by carbon monoxide fumes. And over the last two
hurricane seasons in Florida, at least twelve people died from
poisoning caused by poorly ventilated portable generators. These people
died because portable generators are not manufactured to automatically
cut off when high carbon monoxide rates are reached and because many
manufacturers fail to place adequate warning labels on generators.
Here is what is especially troubling about these senseless deaths:
The Consumer Product Safety Commission has known for years that people
were dying from carbon monoxide poisoning at an increasingly alarming
rate. In study after study, the Commission has recognized the high
death rate from portable generators, and Commission staff has found
that portable generator warning labels are often inconsistent, vague,
and incomplete. Yet the Commission has continued to let the generator
industry police itself--without any mandatory Federal safety standards.
Enough is enough. Industry self-regulation--which works in some
settings--clearly is not working here. Congress must now step in and do
its part to eliminate these tragic and avoidable deaths.
My bill--the Portable Generator Safety Act--takes some simple,
commonsense steps. The bill requires the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to pass tough Federal regulations within 180 days of the
passage of the bill. The new regulations would have three components.
First, every portable generator must have a sensor that automatically
shuts off the generator before lethal levels of carbon monoxide are
reached. Other products, such as portable heaters, already contain
these types of sensors, which save lives.
Second, every portable generator must have clearly written warning
labels on the packaging and on the generator itself. These labels must
include a pictogram that visually depicts the safety hazard from carbon
monoxide. What I am talking about here is labels that are easy to read
and can quickly be understood by people who are desperate for power in
emergency circumstances.
Third, every instruction manual that accompanies a portable generator
must clearly explain the safety hazards associated with operating the
generator.
How many more innocent people must needlessly die before we require
the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the portable generator
industry to take some sensible, pro-consumer steps? It is my goal that
after the next hurricane season, we will not be back here asking these
same questions.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2084
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 ``Portable Generator Safety
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) Portable generators are frequently used to provide
electricity during temporary power outages. These generators
use fuel-burning engines that emit carbon monoxide gas in
their exhaust.
(2) In the last several years, hundreds of people
nationwide have been seriously injured or killed due to
exposure to carbon monoxide poisoning from portable
generators. From 1990 through 2003, 228 carbon monoxide
poisoning deaths were reported to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission.
(3) Virtually all of the serious injuries and deaths due to
carbon monoxide from portable generators were preventable. In
many instances, consumers simply were unaware of the hazards
posed by carbon monoxide.
(4) Since at least 1997, a priority of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission has been to reduce injuries and deaths
resulting from carbon monoxide poisoning. Although the
Commission has attempted to work with industry to devise
voluntary standards for portable generators, and despite
Commission staff statements that voluntary standards were
ineffective, the Commission has not promulgated mandatory
rules governing safety standards and labeling requirements.
(5) The issuance of mandatory safety standards and labeling
requirements to warn consumers of the dangers associated with
portable generator carbon monoxide would reduce the risk of
injury or death.
SEC. 3. SAFETY STANDARD.
Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate
regulations, pursuant to section 7 of the Consumer Product
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056), requiring, at a minimum, that
every portable generator sold to the public for purposes
other than resale shall be equipped with an interlock safety
device that detects the level of carbon monoxide in the areas
surrounding such portable generator and automatically turns
off power to the portable generator before the level of
carbon monoxide is capable of causing serious bodily injury
or death to people.
SEC. 4. LABELING AND INSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.
Not later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act,
the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate
regulations, pursuant to section 7 of the Consumer
[[Page S13504]]
Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056), requiring, at a minimum,
the following:
(1) Warning labels.--Each portable generator sold to the
public for purposes other than resale shall have a large,
prominently displayed warning label on the exterior
packaging, if any, of the portable generator and permanently
affixed on the portable generator regarding the carbon
monoxide hazard posed by incorrect use of the portable
generator. The warning label shall include the word
``DANGER'' printed in a large font, and shall include the
following information, at a minimum, presented in a clear
manner:
(A) Indoor use of a portable generator can kill quickly.
(B) Portable generators should be used outdoors only and
away from garages and open windows.
(C) Portable generators produce carbon monoxide, a
poisonous gas that people cannot see or smell.
(2) Pictogram.--Each portable generator sold to the public
for purposes other than resale shall have a large pictogram,
affixed to the portable generator, which clearly states
``POISONOUS GAS'' and visually depicts the harmful effects of
breathing carbon monoxide.
(3) Instruction manual.--The instruction manual, if any,
that accompanies any portable generator sold to the public
for purposes other than resale shall include detailed, clear,
and conspicuous statements that include the following
elements:
(A) A warning that portable generators emit carbon
monoxide, a poisonous gas that can kill people.
(B) A warning that people cannot smell, see, or taste
carbon monoxide.
(C) An instruction to operate portable generators only
outdoors and away from windows, garages, and air intakes.
(D) An instruction to never operate portable generators
inside homes, garages, sheds, or other semi-enclosed spaces,
even if a person runs a fan or opens doors and windows.
(E) A warning that if a person begins to feel sick, dizzy,
or weak while using a portable generator, that person should
shut off the portable generator, get to fresh air
immediately, and consult a doctor.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 2086. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue code of 1986 to modify
the definition of compensation for purposes of determining the limits
on contributions to individual retirement accounts and annuities, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senator Smith in
introducing the IRA Equity Act of 2005, which would allow the disabled
and those who temporarily leave the workforce to continue to save for
their retirement.
We should be encouraging responsible behavior. When those whose
income is slashed because they become disabled--or because they take
time off to care for a child, volunteer for a good cause, or go to
school--want to continue to save for retirement, that is commendable,
it is responsible, and we ought to do everything we can to make it
easier.
Yet today, people who are injured and have their income replaced by
workers' compensation or Social Security disability suddenly are no
longer able to contribute to their IRAs. That's because under current
law, income contributed to IRAs must be ``compensation,'' or earned
through work. Under the current rules, disability income doesn't
qualify.
We know that those who become disabled will still need to support
themselves in their old age; we know that they may even need to spend
more because of their disability; and we know that because of their
disability, they have less earning power and that makes it harder to
save. So why in the world would we further penalize them for being
disabled by taking away one of the most effective savings tools they
have? It just doesn't make any sense.
My legislation would fix this problem by allowing wage replacement
income, including Social Security disability and workers' compensation,
to be contributed to IRAs. Additionally, my legislation would permit
those who take up to two years away from the workforce to contribute
earnings from prior years to their IRAs so that they can continue to
save. Federal law should not force people to break good savings habits.
In the name of fairness and retirement security, I urge my colleagues
to support this common-sense legislation.
______
By Mr. CHAMBLISS:
S. 2087. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to
provide for the employment of foreign agricultural workers, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Agricultural
Employment and Workforce Protection Act. My home State of Georgia is
one of the most diversified agricultural producing States east of the
Mississippi. The livelihood of many of my constituents and many
Americans across the country depends on the quality of the crop, the
bounty of the harvest, and the health of the livestock.
In drafting this legislation I am introducing today, I was guided by
four principles:
1. Prevention--if we do not stem the tide of illegal immigrants
coming into our country then there is no point in Congress attempting
to have a positive impact on our immigration policy. Strict enforcement
of our immigration laws is essential and we should demand no less.
2. Protection--the United States has always been a welcoming country
to immigrants, and many non-immigrants are admitted for temporary
periods to perform necessary jobs--particularly in the field of
agriculture--that employers cannot fill. However, any temporary worker
program must provide adequate protections for American jobs. Employers
should not view alien workers as a way to get cheaper labor--it is not
fair to Americans willing to work hard and looking for a well-paying
job and it is not fair to the aliens who are exploited by working for
sub-standard wages.
3. Accountability--if Congress, through reform legislation, provides
employers with an avenue to obtain legal temporary workers, there
should be no tolerance for employers who hire illegal aliens. We all
know that many illegal immigrants come to the United States seeking
employment. Employers who flaunt the rule of law by hiring illegally
are hampering our efforts to secure the border by providing incentives
for people to illegally come to the United States, and they must be
held accountable.
4. Compassion--We are a Nation of immigrants and immigrants have made
many wonderful contributions to our country--not the least of which is
helping ensure there is a stable supply of food in the grocery stores
for all Americans. We need to ensure that those workers who come to the
United States on a temporary basis to perform agricultural work are not
exploited and are treated with fairness and respect. The best way to
show compassion for illegal immigrants is to stop illegal immigration.
I know the Senate is planning to take up debate on comprehensive
immigration reform early next year, and I think it is important that we
engage in this discussion. The purpose of my legislation is to ensure
that reform for the agricultural community is included in whatever
reforms Congress considers. The agricultural sector of our economy has
been historically plagued by illegal immigration. We already have an
avenue for agricultural employers to obtain legal temporary workers--
the H-2A program. However, many agricultural employers do not use the
program because its bureaucracy is difficult to navigate, it is costly,
and it is litigious. In addition, it excludes certain occupations from
agriculture. My legislation provides needed reforms to the H-2A
program, provides for the creation of a temporary blue card program,
establishes an H-2AA worker program for cross-border commuter workers,
and, above all, provides for increased border security.
First, it mandates that the Department of Homeland Security establish
and present to Congress a comprehensive plan for increased border
security and stricter enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws,
including detailed strategies, timelines, and estimated costs. Until
such time the Secretary presents and Congress approves the plan, some
interim measures would apply.
Second, the legislation streamlines and modernizes the H-2A program.
H-2A is not a new guestworker program. It has been around for many
years, but underutilized because of its high costs, red tape, and risks
of drawn out litigation. To increase the use of the program, the bill
expands the definition of ``agriculture'' to include industries that
have been excluded from use of the program previously--industries such
as poultry, seafood, and meat processors, landscapers, and
reforestation contractors. The bill also bases the definition
``temporary'' on the duration a worker is allowed to be in the
[[Page S13505]]
United States rather than tying it to seasonality. Some agricultural
occupations, like poultry producers and dairy producers, do not follow
seasons but require workers year round. If these employers in
occupations previously excluded from the H-2A program were offered a
viable alternative to an illegal workforce, I have no doubt they would
seize it.
Third, my legislation creates a cross-border commuter worker program,
called the H-2AA program. This program is modeled after the H-2A
program, but recognizes that many farms located close to the Canadian
and Mexican borders seek to employ workers who prefer to live in their
home countries and simply come to the U.S. each day. The H-2AA program
exempts farmers who employ these H-2AA workers from the housing and
transportation requirements of the H-2A program, and requires those who
use it to enter and exit the United States each day. It allows these
agricultural operations to attract workers who live close to the
borders but do not desire to move to the United States.
Finally, my legislation establishes a blue card program. This is a
temporary program that provides for the transition of employees who are
currently here in an undocumented status filling needed jobs. To
qualify for a blue card, aliens must have worked at least 1600 hours in
agriculture in 2005, have never been convicted or a felony or a
misdemeanor in the United States, and must have a petition filed on
their behalf by their employer. Only after a background check is
conducted by the Department of Homeland Security would these blue card
workers be allowed to work in the United States for a period of 24
months before they must return to their home country. The blue card
allows employers who are currently utilizing an illegal workforce to
transition their workforce into a legal one by having their employees
leave the country and return on the legal H-2A temporary worker program
without experiencing a complete work stoppage. There is no amnesty with
the blue card program--all workers must return to their home country.
The underlying premise of any guestworker program and explicitly
provided for in my proposed legislation is that United States employers
should not be allowed to utilize a guestworker program unless and until
they have actively recruited American workers and are unable to find
enough to fill needed jobs. We don't want to stifle American businesses
but more importantly we don't want to disadvantage American workers.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting practical needed
reforms for the agricultural community and I look forward to the time
early next year in which this vital issue will be debated here in the
United States Senate.
______
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 2088. A bill to assist low-income families, displaced from their
residences in the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi as a
result of Hurricane Katrina, by establishing within the Department of
Housing and Urban Development a homesteading initiative that offers
displaced low-income families the opportunity to purchase a home owned
by the Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Hurricane Katrina
Recovery Homesteading Act of 2005. Modeled on the United States' 19th
century homesteading initiatives and similar urban programs in the
1970s, this legislation will help us begin to rebuild the Gulf Coast
areas destroyed by the hurricane and flooding, providing a fresh start
for families victimized by this tragedy.
The new urban homesteading proposal will serve several purposes.
First, it is an initial step towards rebuilding and revitalizing the
hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. While we have spent recent months
appropriately focusing on rescue and clean up, we must now examine the
long term need to rebuild and revitalize.
Second, the new urban homestead initiative will be one way to begin
to address the housing needs of those displaced by Hurricane Katrina.
But I want to make it clear that this program is not being introduced
as the sole answer to all of the housing problems faced by hurricane
victims. Getting all of those individuals back on their feet will
require multiple efforts on a significant scale. This is one component
of a comprehensive response to the housing needs of the Gulf Coast
region. I believe the initiative is a very good start.
Third, the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act is a
productive way of dealing with government owned properties. Through the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Veterans' Administration (VA),
and other programs, the Federal Government holds title to thousands of
properties in the Gulf Coast region. Vacant government owned properties
have the potential to be a blight on their neighborhoods, diminishing
property values and acting as a magnet for crime and vandalism.
Following Hurricane Katrina, vacant properties can also present health
and safety dangers. Unless the properties are rebuilt and have families
living in them, they will likely be a significant drag on the efforts
to rebuild the region. The homesteading initiative will address the
health and safety concerns and further the revitalization effort while
putting the property to productive use.
I would like to briefly describe how the initiative will work. I am
pleased that it is based on a Federal-local partnership, as well as a
partnership between government, non-profits, and the private-sector.
HUD will identify potential government owned property for transfer
without cost to units of local government. The local government would
establish an equitable procedure for selecting low income families
affected by the hurricane for participation. HUD and the local
government would work with partners, such as Habitat for Humanity,
mortgage lenders, and others, to help the new urban homesteaders find
resources to construct their new homes.
Participating families must agree to occupy the property for five
years as their principal residence, to bring the property up to health
and safety codes within one year, and to build a house to applicable
code standards within three years. They must also agree to periodic
compliance inspections. In exchange, the family would receive title to
the property.
I would like to thank President Bush, Department of Housing and Urban
Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson, and House sponsor
Representative Jindal for working with me on this effort. I look
forward to continuing to work with them, long with the rest of my
colleagues, to enact the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Homesteading Act of
2005.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 2092. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
authorize review by the Joint Committee on Tax of Federal income tax
returns of United States Supreme Court nominees, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. The Greek philosopher Plato warned, ``where there is an
income tax, the just man will pay more, and the unjust man will pay
less on the same amount of income.'' This phrase is telling.
The way people fill out their tax returns is an important window into
their private ethical conduct. And it is a good barometer of their
integrity, character, and suitability for office. Paying one's fair
share of the tax burden is one of an American's most important
patriotic duties. Americans from all walks of life pay their taxes out
of obligation and fidelity to their country. Isn't it fair to know
whether individuals who have been nominated for lifetime positions to
the highest court in the land have faithfully paid their taxes?
The legislation that I introduce today, The Supreme Court Tax
Accountability Act of 2005, would require that nominees to the Supreme
Court--including Judge Samuel Alito--provide 3 years of tax returns for
an independent review to ensure compliance with the law. Specifically,
the legislation would require the nonpartisan Joint Committee on
Taxation to review a Supreme Court nominee's returns and report on the
nominee's tax compliance to the Judiciary and Finance Committees. The
bill does not extend the power to inspect tax returns to any persons
who do not currently
[[Page S13506]]
have such authority. And the bill ensures that private taxpayer
information is not shared unscrupulously. Certainly, these returns
would not be released to the public.
This approach has precedent. Thirty years ago, Supreme Court Justice
William O. Douglas retired from the bench. Within days, President Ford
nominated John Paul Stevens for the vacancy. The President hoped that
the nomination of a moderate who had been given the American Bar
Association's highest rating would help restore confidence in
government in the wake of the Watergate scandals. As the confirmation
hearings drew near, six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote
Chairman Eastland requesting ``the most thorough practicable
investigation of the nominee.'' The Senators' letter requested full
disclosure of Stevens' personal health and finances, including a
complete and thorough review of his Federal and state tax returns.
Stevens promptly complied.
When the full Senate took up the nomination, Chairman Eastland urged
the confirmation of Stevens saying, ``his personal integrity, as
reflected in his financial statements and income tax returns, is of the
highest order.'' The Senate confirmed Stevens by a vote of 98 to 0 and
he took the oath of office 2 days later at the age of 55.
Washington is now under a similar ethical cloud. But the White House
has resisted my efforts to have the Joint Committee on Taxation review
the tax returns of Chief Justice John Roberts, Ms. Harriet Miers, and
Judge Samuel Alito. The administration's decision to put its Supreme
Court nominees' tax returns off limits is consistent with its penchant
for secrecy.
Its refusal to heed this most basic document request, however, is a
barrier to the rigorous due diligence process required for prospective
Government officials that come before the Senate Committee on Finance.
All nominees, from Cabinet secretaries to Tax Court judges, have their
tax returns scrutinized. On more than one occasion, the Finance
Committee has admonished the administration for failing to do a better
job of determining a candidate's compliance with the tax laws. In some
cases, tax issues have contributed to the withdrawal of nominees who
were before the Senate.
Despite these warnings and withdrawals, the administration still
doesn't do a particularly good job of catching nominees' tax problems.
Therefore, it is vital to the constitutional process of advice and
consent for the Senate to have the information necessary to ensure
fitness to serve. The Senate must not rely on the executive branch to
provide oversight.
Finally, I am introducing this bill today to apply to all nominees--
those nominated by Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents.
Careful oversight of nominees to the highest Court in the land should
not be a partisan issue. It was Ronald Reagan who famously said,
``trust, but verify.'' This bill aims to embody President Reagan's
maxim. Trust in government is an issue that Republicans, Democrats, and
Independents value.
The noted Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis said that ``secrecy
necessarily breeds suspicion.'' The American people have a right to
know that public officials--particularly those appointed for life--have
faithfully and fully paid their taxes. Blocking Congressional access to
Supreme Court nominees' returns creates questions that can breed public
distrust in government. Providing access to those returns can help to
provide the transparency and trust Americans deserve in the Supreme
Court nomination process. I look forward to working with my colleagues
to get this bill enacted.
______
By Mr. BIDEN:
S. 2095. A bill to ensure payment of United States assessments for
United Nations peacekeeping operations in 2005 and 2006; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure
that the United States does create new arrears at the United Nations.
At a time when our Government is seeking important reforms at the
United Nations, it would be a mistake for us to fall short on our dues
at the U.N. But unless Congress acts promptly, that is what we are
about to do.
Here's why.
In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N.
peacekeeping at 25 percent after 1995. At the time, the United States
was assessed by the U.N. at a rate of about 31 percent for
peacekeeping. Thus, the United States incurred arrears because of the
25 percent limitation--that is, the gap between the 25 percent and 31
percent.
In 1999, Congress approved the Helms-Biden law. It authorized the
repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on certain reforms in
the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a negotiated reduction in the
United Nations of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent.
Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in
reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent.
In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears
payments to be provided to the U.N. at the higher rate--27 percent--
that Ambassador Holbrooke negotiated. But the original 1994 law
limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed.
In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a
temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to
the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke. That temporary change in
law lasted through fiscal year 2005. But it has now expired.
Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more
than 25 percent for peacekeeping--even though the United Nations
assesses the United States at the rate of roughly 27 percent. In the
coming weeks, we are scheduled to pay a bill of about $344 million that
has come due since October 1. Under U.S. law, we will only be able to
pay about $319 million, leaving a shortfall of about $25 million. At a
time when our diplomats are in the final stages of negotiating
important reforms in the U.N. system, it would be a mistake
unilaterally to withhold payments to the U.N. Rather than encourage
reform, it may cause an adverse reaction by other nation and undermine
our reform agenda.
Earlier this year, the Bush administration recognized this coming
train wreck. On March 1, the Department of State transmitted to
Congress its official request for the Foreign Relations Authorization
Act for fiscal year 2006 and 2007. Section 401 of that legislation
would amend current law and raise the limitation on U.S. payments to
27.1 percent through calendar year 2007. The summary of the request
said as follows: ``Without further relief, the U.N. peacekeeping cap
would revert to 25% and the United States would go into arrears. The
proposed section would . . . enable the United States to pay U.N.
assessments at the rate assessed by the U.N. up to a rate of 27.1% . .
. [t]his would allow the United States to pay its peacekeeping
assessment in full, including funding for a new peace support operation
in Sudan . . .''
Since then, however, the administration has done little to secure
enactment of this provision. On December 1, 2005, the Secretary of
State requested by letter to the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations several ``critical legislative proposals that are of a
time sensitive nature and warrant enactment prior to the Congress'
adjournment in mid-October.'' The request contains four provisions but
does not include the provision required to assure full payment of U.N.
peacekeeping assessments.
Mr. President, I realize that the Congress has a lot on its agenda in
the final days of the first session. But we have a responsibility to
ensure payment of our obligations to the United Nations--and to ensure
that we do not undermine the negotiations on U.N. reform now underway.
____________________