[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 31 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1212-S1225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TAX EXTENDERS ACT OF 2009

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 4213, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4213) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend certain expiring provision, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Baucus amendment No. 3336, in the nature of a substitute.
       Landrieu modified amendment No. 3335 (to amendment No. 
     3336) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
     for 2 years the low-income housing credit rules for buildings 
     in GO Zones, and for other purposes.
       Reid (for Murray) modified amendment No. 3356 (to amendment 
     No. 3336) to extend the TANF Emergency Fund through fiscal 
     year 2011 and to provide funding for summer employment for 
     youth.
       Coburn amendment No. 3358 (to amendment No. 3336) to 
     require the Senate to be transparent with taxpayers about 
     spending.
       Baucus (for Webb/Boxer) amendment No. 3342 (to amendment 
     No. 3336) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     impose an excise tax on excessive 2009 bonuses received from 
     certain major recipients of Federal emergency economic 
     assistance, to limit the deduction allowable for such 
     bonuses.
       Feingold/Coburn amendment No. 3368 (to amendment No. 3336) 
     to provide for the rescission of unused transportation 
     earmarks and to establish a general reporting requirement for 
     any unused earmarks.
       Reid amendment No. 3417 (to amendment No. 3336) to 
     temporarily modify the allocation of geothermal receipts.
       McCain/Graham amendment No. 3427 (to amendment No. 3336) to 
     prohibit the use of reconciliation to consider changes in 
     Medicare.
       Lincoln amendment No. 3401 (to amendment No. 3336) to 
     improve a provision relating to emergency disaster 
     assistance.

  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we are now on our fifth day of 
consideration of this important legislation to create jobs and extend 
vital safety net and tax provisions.
  As a reminder, this legislation would prevent millions of Americans 
from falling through the safety net. It would put cash into the hands 
of Americans who would spend it quickly, boosting economic demand. It 
would extend critical programs and tax incentives that create jobs.
  We had another productive day on the bill yesterday. We conducted 
three rollcall votes on amendments. We adopted four amendments. As I 
count it, there are nine amendments pending.

[[Page S1213]]

Those amendments are the underlying substitute amendment, Senator 
Landrieu's amendment on the Go-Zones, Senator Murray's amendment on 
summer employment for youth, Senator Coburn's amendment on 
transparency, Senator Webb's amendment on executive bonuses, a 
Feingold-Coburn amendment to rescind unused transportation earmarks, an 
amendment by Senator Reid of Nevada on geothermal receipts, a McCain 
amendment on the use of budget reconciliation, and a Lincoln amendment 
on emergency disaster assistance.
  A piece of legislation such as this is like a long-distance run. It 
starts out with a lot of energy and a lot of activity. After a while it 
reaches its stride, plateaus, and moderates its pace. But then the pace 
picks up again near the finish; that is, if we have much energy left.
  For this bill, most of the activity is behind us. This bill reached 
its stride. We see the finish line ahead on Tuesday or so, and we 
expect a final push then.
  We will work today to clear as many of the pending amendments as we 
can. If Senators have other noncontroversial amendments, we are happy 
to try to clear those today as well. The Senate will conduct no 
rollcall votes today.
  The majority leader indicated that we would see a cloture vote on 
this bill on Tuesday, and we hope to conclude action on this bill on 
Tuesday as well.
  I thank all Senators for their cooperation.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I had hoped to call up an 
amendment I have. Of course, I would have had to have gotten unanimous 
consent to set aside the pending amendment in order to do that. It is 
my understanding that we will attempt to do that parliamentary 
procedure at a later time.
  What I would like to do at this point is explain the amendment I will 
be offering. May I proceed?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator may.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, this is an amendment to restore 
some sanity and common sense to the executive pay practices that have 
outraged all of us that we have seen on Wall Street among the biggest 
financial institutions in this country. It is very simple and 
straightforward.
  It encourages large banks and financial institutions to adopt widely 
accepted and sound compensation practices. Banks, under this amendment, 
that would fail to adopt those standards would lose the benefit of 
certain tax deductions, such as the tax deduction of their executive 
compensation as a cost of doing business over $1 million per executive. 
In other words, they could no longer deduct the large compensation 
payments they make to highly paid employees. But we do not limit it to 
$1 million compensation. The bank could pay whatever it wanted. We are 
just going to get some commonsense practices in here.
  With the status of financial reform legislation uncertain, I believe 
we are going to have to deal with this issue immediately because of the 
angst in the country. I think all of us have read with astonishment the 
recent reports that Wall Street banks continue to pay outlandish 
bonuses to the executives who may not be so deserving. Then, just to 
add insult to injury to the American taxpayer, many of those 
institutions are still living on taxpayer-funded life support.
  In most business professions, pay for executives should chase 
performance. Managers and executives are rewarded for creating lasting 
value to their companies. Unsuccessful managers and executives are 
shown the door. But these basic commonsense principles have been lost 
in these major Wall Street financial institutions that we have seen 
uncovered over the last several months.
  This year, total Wall Street bonuses exceeded $20 billion. In less 
than a year and a half after the fall of Lehman Brothers, it is back to 
business as usual for some of our major banks, and that is inexcusable. 
We have been here before. We had this same debate last spring. Remember 
when AIG paid absurd bonuses to financial traders who had managed one 
major accomplishment? And what was that accomplishment? They drove 
their company into the ground.
  Although we talked and talked on the floor of the Senate and 
legislation was introduced, Congress failed to act back then, a year 
ago. And here we are again. There is an old saying that comes to mind: 
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
  If we are going to right this financial ship of state, we are going 
to have to tackle all of the flaws in our financial system, and that 
includes executive pay, and executive pay specifically on Wall Street.
  There is now almost unanimous recognition that poorly crafted 
executive pay practices at major banks and financial institutions 
contributed to the near collapse of the financial system and the need 
that we had to step up to that almost caused financial meltdown, the 
need of a $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout called TARP, Toxic 
Assets Relief Program.
  Think: Just last week the general counsel of the Federal Reserve 
Board of Governors testified that the compensation practices in the 
banking sector were a contributing cause to the crisis. In January, the 
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, found that ``excessive and 
imprudent risk taking remains a contributing factor in the financial 
institution failures and losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund.''
  The FDIC attributes these continuing failures and losses in part to 
bank compensation practices. Current pay practices encourage this 
excessive risk taking because short-term gains are heavily rewarded, 
even if they are unsustainable. The negative consequences of severe 
losses are often externalized and shifted to the shareholders and 
ultimately, when we have to bail them out, to the public taxpayers.
  The Federal safety net for financial institutions encourages traders 
and executives to take unnecessary risk, and the most obvious example 
is the $700 billion Wall Street bailout which I and other Senators 
initially opposed. Executives who should have been left without their 
shirts instead were left with golden parachutes.
  Let's take an example. The CEO of Bank of America resigned at the end 
of last year with a $73 million severance package. Bank of America is 
one poster child for a poorly managed financial institution. Why? It 
received $45 billion in taxpayer funds to avoid insolvency.
  To put that in perspective, that is almost $150 from every man, 
woman, and child in this country. It is the equivalent of every 
American writing a check for $150 to Bank of America's management. Once 
the CEO was basically asked to step down, he walked away with a $73 
million severance package.
  Did Bank of America respond by ramping up lending to small businesses 
to help get the economy going? That is what we begged them to do. That 
is what we have been begging, through the TARP and the stimulus bill, 
to make programs for loans to small business available. Did Bank of 
America do that? No. But they did manage to find $73 million for their 
CEO's severance package. What we find is that Wall Street all too often 
has rewarded failure with bloated bonuses and outrageous severance 
packages.
  If we want to get to real and meaningful financial reform, it is 
going to have to include changes in the existing compensation culture 
in the financial industry.
  I know what the response is going to be: Why should you penalize us? 
In order to get good executives, we are going to have to pay these big 
compensation packages.
  As far as this Senator is concerned, that is fine. But we need to 
make sure a huge compensation package is tied to performance.
  The amendment I am offering is going to put an end to the reality 
disconnect on that street known as Wall Street that has rewarded 
failure and that emphasizes short-term stock appreciation over long-
term growth. This amendment does so by putting some

[[Page S1214]]

basic and well-accepted principles of sound compensation practices in 
the Tax Code.

  For example, major banks and financial institutions would only be 
able to deduct their large executive compensation payments if the pay 
complies with the rules that focus on rewarding long-term performance. 
These principles were developed by the Financial Stability Board, the 
council of major central banks. These are fellow bankers who set up 
these principles. The Federal Reserve was instrumental in developing 
those compensation principles.
  So the tax deductions for major banks would be conditioned on the 
following: If you are going to have a compensation executive package 
over $1 million, it must be performance based, and at least half of the 
performance-based compensation must vest over an extended period of 5 
years or more. This will tie compensation not only to performance but 
to long-term performance. For executives at public companies, at least 
half of the performance-based compensation must be paid in employer 
stock, and compensation agreements for top executives must include a 
clawback provision that will retract deferred compensation in the event 
of ethical misconduct. Lastly, the compensation agreements must 
prohibit employees from engaging in personal hedging strategies, such 
as compensation insurance, that undermine the risk alignment 
principles.
  In addition, the employer's bonus pool must take into account the 
institution's liquidity needs, reserve requirements, and the risk that 
future projected revenues will not materialize.
  Finally, this amendment I am going to offer creates new and 
meaningful executive compensation disclosure requirements so that 
shareholders can be empowered and investors can be empowered to hold 
banks accountable for compensation practices that fail to fully comply 
with these new tax rules that are there by virtue of the principles 
adopted.
  Of course, the special interests are going to come in and argue that 
Congress should not get involved in compensation decisions, that the 
market knows best. They will argue if Congress passes measures such as 
this that Wall Street is going to pack up its bags and move to greener 
pastures abroad. Unfortunately, right now, what the market knows is 
that big short-term gains lead to big bonuses, and big losses lead to 
taxpayer-funded bailouts. And the American taxpayer is fed up.
  This is only going to apply to the largest 57 banks in this country. 
This is not going to apply to most of the banks in this country. We 
need to take real steps now to reform compensation practices, and it is 
my hope that the chairman of the Finance Committee is going to be able 
to get this amendment accepted without opposition. It is common sense, 
it is desperately needed, and the American people are crying out for 
reform.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          Bozeman's Resiliency

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise in mourning and remembrance on the 
first anniversary of a devastating natural gas explosion in downtown 
Bozeman, MT.
  At 8:11 in the morning, 1 year ago, downtown Bozeman was quiet, under 
a thick blanket of snow. One minute later, a blast ripped through the 
silence, killing a young woman named Tara Reistad Bowman and 
devastating most of the 200 block of East Main Street.
  Windows were shattered as far as four blocks away. A passing cyclist 
commuting to work was thrown off his bike by the blast, and 911 calls 
showed that the explosion was felt miles away. The firefighters and 
rescue crews responding to the blast later found that a natural gas 
line behind Montana Trails Gallery was cracked and that a gas leak had 
caused the explosion.
  Ten businesses and several apartment units were leveled by the blast 
or engulfed in the flames that followed. Boodles and Starky's, the 
Rocking R Bar, and the American Legion--all destroyed. Assistant City 
Manager Chuck Winn described it as the worst catastrophe he had ever 
seen in the city.
  Firefighters from Bozeman, from Big Sky, and from Three Forks--nearby 
communities--all came to the rescue to put out the blaze. These brave 
men and women stopped the fire from spreading to nearby stores. The 
Montana National Guard was called upon to help provide security.
  One year after this tragedy, we pause to recognize today as a day of 
mourning and remembrance. We join the men and women of Bozeman who will 
observe a moment of silence this morning.
  Today, Montanans will mourn the loss of Tara Bowman. Our thoughts and 
prayers go out to her friends and her family and all who knew her. I 
never met Tara, but I understand she was a very special woman. She was 
a talented artist and a mentor to other artists in Bozeman. Tara liked 
to paint in the quiet morning. She had come into work early to the 
Montana Trails Art Gallery the morning of the blast. Her family and 
many friends around Bozeman miss her dearly.
  Today, as we mourn, we also remember the actions of the people of 
Bozeman after the blast. Oftentimes, in the routine of everyday life, 
we forget we may be called upon at any moment to act heroically. There 
were many heroes that day in Bozeman. More than 70 firefighters from 
departments throughout Gallatin County answered the call for help. 
Although it took hours to shut off the natural gas that had caused the 
initial blast, the volunteers continued to fight the blaze.
  Many had left their day jobs to perform this dangerous duty. The 
calls to help continued long after the blaze was extinguished. 
Residents had lost their homes and small business owners had lost their 
livelihoods. In the truest expression of what it is to be a Montanan, 
the people of Bozeman pulled together to help the victims of the blast 
and rebuild downtown.
  Local businesses donated food to emergency workers. They donated 
lumber to cover shattered windows. A community relief fund provided 
$200,000 for those left homeless to find shelter and replace paychecks 
for those left jobless.
  The story of a man named Chris Cundy fully illustrates this generous 
spirit. Chris was left homeless after the explosion and the subsequent 
fire destroyed almost everything he owned. Chris even lost the tools of 
his trade: his musical instruments--several electronic keyboards and a 
grand piano. But then the community stepped in. The Red Cross met his 
immediate needs--toothbrushes, soap, towels, and debit cards. Musicians 
around Bozeman raised funds to help replace his instruments. A fellow 
renter borrowed a saxophone from a local music store so he could keep 
playing to pay the bills.
  After the explosion, Chris started playing music full time and even 
performed to raise funds for the victims of the earthquake in Haiti. 
Chris has proven that good can come from tragedy. He told the Bozeman 
Chronicle:

       The scope and depth of the community's support depicts 
     values that exist only with people who truly care about one 
     another.

  A year later, I am glad to report that downtown Bozeman has made 
great strides. The American Legion has already begun to rebuild, and 
plans have been submitted to reconstruct many of the other destroyed 
businesses as well. I am working to make sure Federal dollars help fund 
the reconstruction.
  At this time next year, city officials expect every business impacted 
by the blast to be back on its feet and in operation. That is the 
resiliency of Bozeman and the spirit of Montana.
  Today, we pause to remember last year's blast in mourning of our 
loss. We remember the actions taken by the great people of Bozeman, and 
we proceed with renewed hope for the future.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S1215]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment I hope 
ultimately will be given a chance for consideration on this very 
important legislation we are working on right now. I commend the chair 
of the Finance Committee for his good work on trying to focus this next 
round of job-creation activities that will be created, I believe, as we 
move forward on extending some of the tax provisions that expired last 
year. Some of these tax provisions were part of our stimulus bill that, 
about a year ago, we passed to help jump-start job activities; a 
stimulus bill I sometimes think the American public--perhaps we never 
explained. In fact, close to one-third of that bill was tax cuts, 
another third was direct assistance to States and localities, and the 
final third was a series of new initiatives, many of which are just now 
starting to come to pass.
  I can recall, about a year ago, I came to the Senate floor as we were 
debating the stimulus, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to 
talk about fiscal accountability; to talk about our long-term outlook; 
and to make some recommendations on how we might better track the 
performance and outcome of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 
what most folks commonly refer to as the stimulus.
  Here we are 1 year later and unfortunately it appears critical 
Recovery Act reports and plans have gone missing or have been long 
ignored or were never fully developed in the first place. As we debate 
this important piece of legislation that extends a number of the tax 
provisions, I think we ought to take this moment as well to correct 
some of the deficiencies in reporting on the fiscal responsibility I 
think all of us on both sides of the aisle would like to see in the 
overall Recovery Act activities. We have this chance, at this point, to 
correct course and to ensure we can account for every dollar. Now it is 
time to correct management and transparency gaps that still exist.
  Today, I would like simply to very briefly go through a couple things 
my amendment would do. Hopefully, the chair of the Finance Committee 
and folks on the other side will agree to have these amendments 
incorporated. My amendment will, in three very important ways, correct 
the management and transparency gaps that still exist in the Recovery 
Act. First, it will require agencies to update the implementation plans 
they have developed last year for high-risk programs.
  High risk has this connotation that somehow it is a bad area or bad 
idea. No, the high-risk areas I am defining are those programs that are 
over $2 billion that saw a funding increase of over 150 percent more 
than their fiscal year 2008 funding or are brandnew programs. These 
programs will be required to update their plan by July 1, 2010.
  Let me take a moment and describe what kind of programs I am talking 
about. As I mentioned a few moments ago, the stimulus broke into tax 
cuts, assistance to the States, and then, finally, an agreement that we 
ought to take up a series of areas that have for years been talked 
about in this country but, candidly, we have never done much about--
broadband technology, high-speed rail, smart grid, health care 
information technology. These are all areas that, again, had broad 
support on both sides of the aisle, that we talked about, and only in 
the case of the stimulus were there actually funds put behind these 
initiatives. The challenge was, a year ago many of these areas had very 
little funding or had no programmatic prior experience so the 
administration appropriately took some time to gear up these programs. 
We are just starting to see some of the disbursement on high-speed rail 
and disbursement on the President's Race to the Top education grants. 
But for these new programmatic areas, we need to make sure there is a 
plan in place, that there are metrics in place, and that we know how 
these dollars are being spent out. So the first part of my amendment 
will require these programs in high-risk areas to update their plans by 
July 1 of this year.
  Second, my amendment will require these high-risk programs to report 
back to Congress and the public quarterly, beginning September 30, 
2010.
  These reports must include performance and financial data to let us 
know whether these programs are working and meeting the goals they 
defined in their initial business plan that they would lay out to us in 
July of this year.
  I think this is terribly important. These are areas that, because 
they are new--I think they have enormous popular support, but because 
they are new, we need to make sure that at the front end of these 
program implementations, we have that business plan in place, we have 
the metrics, and we have a reporting mechanism.
  The second part of my amendment is an area that we have been working 
with the inspector general around the Recovery Act, Mr. Devaney, and 
others. I think many of us in this Chamber would be disturbed to find 
out that the recent quarterly report showed that over 1,000 recipients 
of stimulus funding--1,000 agencies, departments, grantees--had failed 
to report back the legally required data on how these dollars have been 
distributed, what kind of tracking is in place. Consequently, when we 
hear critiques, particularly from the other side, about the stimulus, 
about the job creation and efficiency, well, an appropriate rebuttal 
requires facts being in place. Over 1,000 of the recipients that have 
received stimulus funds have basically ignored the law and failed to 
report back. So my amendment proposes financial penalties of up to 
$250,000 for recipients of the stimulus funds who knowingly fail to 
comply with the existing quarterly reporting requirements. We have to 
ensure that our agencies, Congress, and the public are getting the 
information they need to know if these important investments are 
working.
  The amendment requires agencies to notify recipients if they miss a 
deadline. They will provide an opportunity for the recipient to report 
and offer technical assistance if they need that assistance to get back 
on track. But if recipients knowingly do not file the required reports 
or if they ignore these agency requests for this information, agencies 
may impose a penalty to hold these recipients accountable. The 
amendment provides sufficient discretion for agencies to set penalties, 
such as consideration of whether the recipient is a nonprofit, 
government, or small business entity. We don't want to add on a new 
burden, but we simply want those who are receiving financial assistance 
from the stimulus fund to actually fulfill their obligation and make 
sure they report back to us and the public on how those dollars are 
being spent.
  I repeat, it is not too late to correct the gaps in program 
management and transparency in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act. So much of the Recovery Act funding is still in the pipeline. As a 
matter of fact, at the end of last fiscal year, last October, only 18 
percent of our recovery dollars had been spent out. Even at the end of 
this fiscal year, at the end of September 2010, only about 54 percent 
of the dollars will be spent out. We still have literally hundreds of 
billions of dollars to be spent out from this program.
  We have to make sure--we owe it to ourselves, we owe it to the 
public--that we have in place both the appropriate metrics on these 
high-risk programs and that those other organizations that are 
receiving dollars do what is their legal requirement to report back on 
this terribly important data.
  I hope we can get this amendment adopted. I look forward to working 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to bring this added 
transparency and this added management oversight to this very important 
activity.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the courtesy.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Sessions pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 3083 are printed in today's Record under 
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

[[Page S1216]]

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Alabama.


                          Military Commissions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I was pleased to see an article in the 
Boston Globe today saying:

     . . . White House advisers are close to recommending that 
     President Barack Obama opt for military tribunals for the 
     self-professed Sept. 11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed and 
     four of his alleged henchmen, senior officials said.
       The review of where and how to hold a Sept. 11 trial is not 
     over, so no recommendation is yet before the president and 
     Obama has not made a determination on his own, officials 
     said. The review is not likely to be finished this week.

  The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity.
  I will just say, I think that is right. I appreciate the President 
reevaluating the position taken by his Attorney General. I think it was 
based on a number of errors in analysis of the nature of the conflict 
we are in and the status of law, frankly, in America today. I have 
written about that in the Politico publication.
  I will make a point or two about the five errors, mistakes, sometimes 
even falsehoods, it seems to me, that have been put forth to justify 
trying military combatants--unlawful combatants, really--in civilian 
courts and why this is not a good idea and some of the thought 
processes we should go through.
  On February 3, Attorney General Holder wrote this:

       Since the September 11 attacks, the practice of the U.S. 
     Government followed by prior and current administrations 
     without a single exception has been to arrest and detain 
     under Federal criminal law all terror suspects who are 
     apprehended inside the United States.

  That was his letter. The Attorney General is incorrect in that. It is 
made clear by his own citation in that very same letter of the Jose 
Padilla and the Ali Al-Marri cases. In those two cases, President 
George W. Bush ordered each terror suspect transferred into military 
custody after they were captured on U.S. soil. It does not mean they 
cannot later be tried in civilian court, if that is appropriate and you 
have a good reason for doing that. It is not often I could see what 
that would be the case, but it could be. You are not prohibited from 
doing it. The law has apparently established that. They were taken into 
military custody. That means the Speedy Trial Act is not triggered. It 
means the government does not have to pay an attorney for them. And it 
means they can be interrogated, but interrogated consistent with the 
techniques Congress has approved in legislation that dealt with the 
controversy over what kind of interrogation is appropriate. We have 
legislated on that issue.
  Secondly, administration officials have often noted that Richard 
Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, was charged in the civilian criminal 
system, but they fail to mention that the military commission was not 
even in place when he was arrested in December of 2001, not long after 
9/11. The Military Commission Order No. 1 that created the military 
commissions was not signed into law until the next year in March. 
Congress, which dealt with these issues, did not authorize, 
legislatively, the commission system and its structure until 2006. So 
that is not a very good argument, is it?
  Mr. Holder, in his letter to me and other Senators, stunningly cites 
the Second Circuit decision in the Padilla case to assert that the 
President lacks the authority to detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy 
combatant on U.S. soil. He cites the Second Circuit and says the 
Padilla case is authority for the proposition that the President lacks 
the authority to detain a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant on U.S. 
soil if he is captured. The Attorney General, however, fails to note 
that the Supreme Court reversed that decision, stating in the 2004 
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case that there is no bar to this Nation holding one 
of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. A citizen, no less than an 
alien, can be ``part of or supporting forces hostile to the United 
States or coalition partners'' and ``engaged in armed conflict against 
the United States,'' and ``such a citizen, if released, would pose the 
same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.'' Of 
course, that is accurate. Just because you are a citizen does not mean 
you cannot attack the United States, join with forces hostile to it and 
attack the United States.
  How they missed that citation is pretty stunning. If a lawyer in the 
Department of Justice in the Solicitor General's Office arguing before 
a court of appeals somewhere in America failed to note that the opinion 
he was citing was overruled, they would be subject to disciplinary 
action. The lawyer is an officer of the court; they have to know what 
they are citing to the court. They should not ask them to believe 
something that is not accurate. Yet that came out of the Attorney 
General's Office. We can do that, is my point.
  On the question of granting terror suspects Miranda rights--that is, 
the right to remain silent, the right to a lawyer, that kind of thing--
the Attorney General and his team have cited the Padilla case to 
suggest the government could not have held Mr. Abdulmutallab, the 
Christmas Day bomber this past Christmas, in military custody without 
affording him the same access to counsel he was due as a criminal 
defendant. That is just not true. You do not have to capture a person 
on the battlefield. And this is the legal situation we are talking 
about when they captured Abdulmutallab. In World War II, if you 
captured a Japanese or German soldier, you did not appoint them 
lawyers. You did not try them often. You held them until the war was 
over, and they did not get trials during that time.
  To support this totally unjustified position, they note in one of 
their letters that the judge in the case, Judge Michael Mukasey, who 
later became Attorney General of the United States--and a fabulous 
legal mind--who at that time was a Federal judge in New York, granted 
Mr. Padilla a lawyer. So they say he is entitled to a lawyer. But that 
was long after his arrest and it arose from a much lighter contest 
about his detention and whether he should be given a hearing in Federal 
court. The judge agreed to give him a habeas corpus hearing and 
appointed a lawyer for him. But that is not to say that Abdulmutallab, 
who was captured on Christmas Day and interrogated for 50 minutes, was 
entitled to be given a lawyer or be given Miranda rights. It is not 
accurate. It is not correct.
  In Mr. Holder's letter of February 3, he wrote this:

       The Bush administration used the criminal justice system to 
     convict more than 300 individuals on terrorism related 
     charges.

  We have heard that argument made time and again by Members of the 
Senate. Last May, Senator Kyl wrote to Mr. Holder seeking basic 
information to support these claims. Senator Kyl noted that ``a 
comparison of terrorists in Federal prisons to terrorists detained in 
Guantanamo is instructive only if the severity of their actions, their 
background, and allegiance is equivalent.'' No answer was received. In 
November, I asked Attorney General Holder at a Senate Judiciary 
Committee hearing if he would provide that information. He responded 
unequivocally:

       I will supply you with those 300 names and what they were 
     convicted of. I will be glad to do that.

  Months later, he has still not provided the list. I think the reason 
is clear, frankly: the facts do not support that allegation, that 
statement.
  Many of the individuals labeled as terrorists by the Obama 
administration whom they are counting in this number--I think they have 
now dropped it down to 195 or 200--were prosecuted for far lesser 
crimes than Mr. Abdulmutallab, who had a bomb on his person to blow up 
a plane, who had come directly from al-Qaida in Yemen, attacking this 
country as a direct representative of al-Qaida in Yemen, carrying an 
al-Qaida bomb. Mr. Andrew McCarthy, a former Federal prosecutor in 
terrorism cases in New York, recently shed light on a 2008 article 
published by Human Rights First which said that 195 defendants have 
been convicted so far in 199 terrorism-related cases. But Mr. McCarthy 
digs into it and notes that the report defines ``terrorism'' so broadly 
that its finding included prosecutions for false statements, financial 
fraud, and immigration fraud.
  Some say: You are politicizing this matter, Jeff. Don't be so 
critical.
  That is what Mr. Gibbs at the White House says, that criticizing and 
raising

[[Page S1217]]

objections to falsehoods and inaccuracies, and legal statements that 
are not in error is somehow politicizing it. We have young men and 
women in combat today. Their lives are at risk. I think the leaders of 
our country in a time of war should not be spinning this Congress, but 
giving us the unvarnished truth.
  I wanted to say that, and to say I am glad there is now apparently an 
evaluation going on as to how best to handle this situation. I was also 
pleased that Senator John McCain and Senator Joe Lieberman introduced 
their legislation--I believe yesterday they introduced it or the day 
before--that would call for trials of unprivileged enemy belligerents. 
That is the more recent term. It used to be ``unlawful combatants.'' 
Now it is ``unprivileged enemy belligerents'' in military custody. It 
says they are not to be given Miranda rights. They can be detained in 
military custody for initial interrogation and to determine their 
status. It uses Congress's spending power to deny funding to article 
III civilian trials for these unprivileged enemy belligerents and 
mandates, in effect, trials by military commission.
  I would just note, Congress passed legislation and funding to deal 
with the Supreme Court's concerns about the legitimacy or the propriety 
of the procedures used in military commissions. They raised questions 
about that; found several things they believed were inadequate, and 
Congress dealt with it. We had a debate for a number of weeks and we 
passed legislation. The military, at the same time, was reading the 
opinion and changing their procedures to be in compliance with the 
Supreme Court and the laws of our country.
  We put money in establishing our courtroom in Guantanamo to try these 
cases, and we are basically ready to go, after a lot of years, I will 
admit, of uncertainty. Now the President, unwisely--probably based on 
an improvident campaign promise that he would end this--is attempting 
to end it. But I hope now he will reevaluate at least some of that and 
we can get this system back in the right order because an unlawful 
enemy combatant can be tried for crimes. A lawful soldier can't be 
tried.
  If you capture an enemy--a Japanese soldier or a German soldier who 
is fighting for his country and he is out there in his uniform and 
fighting according to the laws of war--they are not prosecuted. But if 
you sneak into the United States surreptitiously, carrying a bomb in 
order to sabotage and kill innocent men, women, and children, contrary 
to the rules of war, then you can be tried. You can be detained as long 
as the war continues as an unlawful combatant. If you violated the laws 
of war, you can be tried for it.
  For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is the alleged mastermind of 
9/11, can be tried for murder in military commissions because he was 
not a common criminal. He was a part of al-Qaida, executing a military 
attack on the United States, contrary to the rules of war.
  So I would hope we can move forward with this in a good way; that the 
President will take the lead because these kinds of decisions are 
easier made in the executive branch than by the legislative branch 
having to cut off funds or pass legislation mandating this or that. The 
Constitution certainly allows these cases to be tried, and the Supreme 
Court has so approved it.
  In fact, Attorney General Holder, in the Judiciary Committee, as a 
result of questions I asked him, has agreed these cases can be tried in 
military commissions and that there is no constitutional prohibition of 
it. In fact, he said it was a policy decision that caused him to have 
the cases tried in civilian courts and not in military courts. I 
believe that is a policy error and it needs to be corrected.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LeMIEUX. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Latin America

  Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about our relations 
with our neighbors to the south in Latin America. I recently had the 
opportunity to travel to Latin America and visit the countries of 
Honduras, Panama, and Colombia. These meetings were very productive.
  During these meetings I had the chance to meet with the new President 
of Honduras, President Lobo, as well as our great ally and friend, 
President Uribe of the country of Colombia.
  Our partnership and friendship with Latin America goes back many 
decades. In recent times we have used wonderful programs such as USAID 
and the Millennium Challenge Corporation to help build the 
infrastructure of Latin America as well as provide the tools to create 
jobs that will be sustainable in these countries.
  Our goal in Latin America is simply this: We want them to succeed. We 
want strong neighbors with good democracies, with a respect for the 
rule of law, a place where their people can be free and prosper and 
hopefully establish great trading partnerships with us in the United 
States of America.
  But the history of Latin America, even recently, is while there have 
been many successes, there have also been setbacks. We have recently 
had troubles in Honduras with President Zelaya, the former President 
who tried to stay in office, and then we had an ouster of him. There is 
a debate among us as to whether that was a coup or whether it was 
legally done. But, nonetheless, it was a disruption in that country's 
emerging democracy.
  In meeting with President Lobo, I was impressed that he has put 
together a national unity government endeavoring to create those 
democratic institutions and strengthen the ones that Honduras was 
building upon and establish a rule of law that will give countries such 
as America and business people from our country the opportunity to 
transact business in that country.
  I believe that under President Lobo's leadership, we have got a good 
chance for Honduras reemerging on the stage in Latin America as a good 
and healthy democracy.
  I was pleased that Secretary Clinton recently recognized the 
democratically elected president. I encourage President Obama to 
receive President Lobo. We need friends in the region. We need friends 
for a number of reasons. We need friends in Latin America, specifically 
Central America, because of the devastating and harmful drug trade. The 
drug trade in Latin America that funnels drugs and guns to this country 
is not just a challenge in and of itself because of the deadly 
narcotics it brings to America, it is a challenge because of the 
violence and the organized structure of violence that goes with it.
  Recently we saw drug gangs in Mexico extract the worst form of 
vengeance upon a family of a young military officer. A military officer 
died in Mexico killing the head of a drug cartel. He was celebrated by 
that country in what would be akin to a state funeral. And the drug 
cartel, to exact vengeance and to send a signal, killed all of the 
members of that soldier's family. That is terrible.
  The money that is provided by these drugs that run from northern 
South America, the Colombia region, and then through Central America, 
these connections, that violent chain is very dangerous to this 
country. It is dangerous for many reasons, but there is an increasing 
danger. There is an increasing danger that has occurred with the 
entrance of Iran and its progeny into Latin America. We now know that 
Ahmadinejad is trying to show his sphere of influence in Latin America; 
that Hezbollah and Hamas, surrogate groups for Iran, who have done most 
of their damage in Lebanon and in Gaza, are now setting up shop in 
Latin America.
  One of the reasons I am here to speak on the floor today is I am 
concerned that the same networks that transported violence and drugs 
and guns to this country could be used by Hezbollah and Hamas to 
provide a national security threat to us in this country and 
potentially bring terrorism to us in that way.
  So our friendship with these countries such as Honduras, our 
friendship with countries such as Panama, our friendship with countries 
such as Colombia matter. It not only matters because we care about the 
human rights

[[Page S1218]]

of the people in those countries and we want them to be prosperous and 
free, but it matters because of our own national security.
  Good, stable democratic partners are good for the United States of 
America. So we should continue to acknowledge President Lobo. We should 
restore the visas that were suspended during the Zelaya incident. We 
should do everything we can to encourage trade to continue with the 
Millennium Challenge Corporation, continue with USAID so that country 
can be prosperous and free and secure.
  The same goes for Panama. Panama is a wonderful friend and partner to 
the United States. The Panama Canal, which the United States had for 
many years but now is in the hands of Panama, is a tremendous trading 
conduit to our country, and the Panama Canal is expanding. Right now, 
dredging and other works are being put in place to allow larger ships 
to come through the Panama Canal. Why is that important to the United 
States of America? Well, no longer will these post-panamax ships from 
China have to go to California to let off their goods. No longer will 
they have to go around the bottom of South America. Now they can come 
through the Panama Canal and service the eastern seaboard of the United 
States.
  For a State such as mine in Florida this is very important. So we 
have to do the work in this country to make sure we are ready for 
those, what they call post-Panamax ships, that our ports are dredged 
deep enough that we have the security and the infrastructure in place 
to make sure we can receive those large ships.
  I have been an advocate for making sure that Florida's ports are 
ready to receive those ships, because that trade will create thousands 
of jobs not just in my home State but all across this country.
  That brings me to the point of trade. We have pending trade 
agreements that have not yet been sent over by the White House to be 
ratified by this Congress; trade agreements with Panama that need to be 
ratified, trade agreements with Colombia that need to be ratified, and 
also with South Korea. It makes no sense not to ratify those 
agreements.
  Let me turn my attention, if I can, to Colombia. We have no better 
friend in Latin America than President Uribe. President Uribe will go 
down in history as one of the greatest leaders in this hemisphere. He, 
in my mind, is akin to Abraham Lincoln to their country, because when 
he came into office about 8 years ago, we were on the verge of Colombia 
turning into a narcoterrorist state, in which the drug gangs would have 
taken over the country.
  In fact, before President Uribe came to office, the previous 
President sought to negotiate with the FARC by setting aside a part of 
the country as a safe haven for the FARC. It was a disaster. I am told 
that when President Uribe was sworn into office, almost 8 years ago, 
that the FARC was shelling and bombing Bogota to try to kill him on his 
inauguration. It is hard for us to realize what a civil war would be 
like, but that has been the situation in Colombia.
  Because of the efforts of the United States of America, and because 
of our military and trade support, and Plan Colombia, which we put $1 
billion into, Colombia turned the tide. The good guys are winning, and 
the FARC, the narcoterrorists, are losing. We are doing a very good job 
of beating those folks back. President Uribe must be commended.
  But of all of our friends in the hemisphere, we have not ratified the 
free trade agreement with Colombia. We have done it with Peru, we have 
done the Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, but not Colombia. 
This agreement is 4 years old. I have spoken to our United States Trade 
Representative and urged him to urge this administration to send these 
trade agreements here.
  I know the problem is not the Senate. The problem is down the hall 
with our colleagues in the House. I know they are concerned about 
certain issues in Colombia. I want to point out for my friends in the 
House of Representatives, because they are concerned about organized 
labor in Colombia, that under the leadership of this government in 
Colombia, homicides of union members are down nearly 80 percent since 
2002. Homicides, in general, are down 45 percent in 2008, the lowest 
point in 22 years. Kidnappings are down by more than 80 percent, and 
acts of terrorism are down 63 percent.
  I had a chance to go to Bogota. It is a beautiful and wonderful city. 
It rises nearly 8,000 feet above sea level, which is 3,000 more feet 
than Denver. Yet it is green and verdant, and it is one of the world's 
most unbelievable places to grow flowers, and 75 percent or more of the 
flowers that come in this country that you get at your florist come to 
us through Colombia. When they come from Colombia, guess where they go 
through to get to the United States of America. They all come through 
Miami, which makes me proud as a Senator from Florida.
  That trade we have right now, the Colombians benefit from free trade 
but we do not benefit in return. We must ratify this agreement. We must 
acknowledge our friends in Colombia. By not ratifying the agreement, 
the signal we are sending is that perhaps our relationship with them, 
under this administration, is not as good as it has been with previous 
administrations. We do not want to send that wrong signal to a model 
country for Latin America.
  But let me again talk about this concern I have about the emerging 
threat of Iran and its influence in Latin America. There is a deadly 
combination forming between Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of 
Venezuela. I ask unanimous consent that this newspaper article which I 
am about to read from be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Venezuela Plotted To Kill Rival, Spain Says

                (By Santiago Perez and Jose de Cordoba)

       Madrid.--Spain and Venezuela headed toward a potential 
     diplomatic face-off after a Spanish judge on Monday accused 
     Caracas of collaborating with rebel groups to assassinate 
     Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and other top political 
     figures.
       Spanish National Court Judge Eloy Velasco alleged Monday 
     that the Venezuelan government had collaborated with Basque 
     separatist group ETA and Colombia's main guerrilla group in a 
     plot against leaders living in or traveling to Spain that 
     began in late 2003.
       The allegations were part of an indictment that ordered 12 
     alleged members of ETA and of the Revolutionary Armed Forces 
     of Colombia, or FARC, to stand trial on charges of conspiracy 
     to commit murder and terrorism, according to a copy reviewed 
     by The Wall Street Journal.
       ``There is evidence . . . showing the cooperation of the 
     Venezuelan government in the illegal collaboration between 
     FARC and ETA,'' according to the indictment.
       Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, 
     speaking at a news conference Monday in Hanover, Germany, 
     said he had ordered his Foreign Ministry to ``request an 
     explanation from the Venezuelan government'' regarding the 
     allegations. ``We are awaiting such explanation,'' Mr. 
     Zapatero said.
       Caracas responded angrily to the allegations. Venezuela's 
     Foreign Ministry, in a statement, dismissed the charges as 
     ``biased and unfounded.''
       Hayden Pirelac a congressman from the ruling coalition of 
     Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, said the Spanish judge's 
     allegations were part of a campaign ``to discredit 
     Venezuela,'' adding: ``We don't give guerrillas refuge, or 
     have any pact with guerrillas.''
       The allegations come at a bad time for Mr. Chavez, whose 
     popularity is falling due to electricity shortages and an 
     economy mired in recession and high inflation. They could 
     also prove tricky for Colombia and Spain, both of which have 
     been trying to move beyond past differences with Venezuela's 
     populist leader.
       The indictments also bring fresh attention to Spain's 
     National Court, whose judges act on their own investigations 
     and are independent from Spain's executive and legislative 
     branches. Some judges have gained international attention, 
     and criticism, for their handling of global cases involving 
     other governments, including an investigation into 
     allegations of U.S. torture at Guantanamo Bay.
       Mr. Velasco, by contrast, has handled mainly local and less 
     controversial terrorism cases, maintaining a low profile 
     domestically and internationally.
       Mr. Uribe, one of the targets of the alleged assassination 
     plots, responded cautiously. ``I think we should react 
     prudently and see what is going on through diplomatic 
     channels,'' he told Colombian radio from Uruguay.
       Another alleged target, former Colombian President Andres 
     Pastrana, also demanded an explanation from Venezuela. ``We 
     are talking about an alleged plot against the lives of, among 
     others, two Colombian acting heads of state,'' he said in a 
     statement.
       Mr. Velasco issued international arrest warrants and 
     extradition requests for the 12

[[Page S1219]]

     men named in the indictment, all of whom allegedly belong to 
     either ETA or FARC and whose whereabouts are unknown. One 
     man, identified as Arturo Cubillas Fontan, is believed to be 
     living in Venezuela.
       In detailing Caracas's alleged role, Mr. Velasco pointed to 
     Mr. Cubillas Fontan, who the judge says led ETA's activities 
     in Latin America since 1999 and acted as a link with the 
     FARC. It says Mr. Cubillas Fontan was hired by Venezuela's 
     Agriculture Ministry in 2005.
       Mr. Cubillas Fontan's alleged contacts with the FARC 
     included ``military training for ETA members in the Colombian 
     jungle, in exchange for ETA's help in Spain, locating 
     terrorist targets sought by FARC,'' according to the 
     indictment. Those targets included visiting Colombian 
     dignitaries, including Messrs. Pastrana and Uribe and current 
     Vice President Francisco Santos.
       The document also says that during a training course on 
     explosives, FARC members were accompanied by ``an escort 
     vehicle with Venezuelan soldiers that was arranged and 
     organized'' by Mr. Cubillas Fontan and another person.
       Venezuela's government, in its statement; said Mr. Cubillas 
     Fontan had been living in Venezuela since 1989 under a deal 
     struck by then-Venezuelan leader Carlos Andres Perez and 
     former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez.
       Information used in the indictment came from the laptop 
     computer of a top FARC guerrilla commander killed by 
     Colombian forces in 2008. In the months that followed, the 
     computer files revealed what international intelligence 
     officials say are close ties between the FARC and top members 
     of Mr. Chavez's government.
       The Venezuelan government has long insisted that the 
     information from the computers was made up by the Colombian 
     government in an attempt to discredit Mr. Chavez, an 
     allegation Colombia denies.
       The indictments will prove challenging for Spain, one of 
     Venezuela's major trade partners. The two sides improved 
     their diplomatic relations under the stewardship of Mr. 
     Zapatero, a leftist, but the road hasn't been smooth.
       Mr. Chavez in 2008 made a surprise announcement he was 
     nationalizing the Venezuelan franchise of Banco Santander, 
     though the improved relations with Madrid might have helped 
     the Spanish financial giant secure a $1.05 billion payment 
     for the unit, more than many analysts expected.
       Colombia has also been trying to mend fences with 
     Venezuela, despite a rocky relationship in the past few years 
     thanks largely to ideological differences between Mr. Chavez 
     and the conservative Mr. Uribe. Last year, after Mr. Uribe 
     agreed to host U.S. bases in Colombia, Mr. Chavez cut 
     economic ties.
       Last week, Mr. Chavez and Mr. Uribe got in a shouting match 
     at a regional meeting of heads of state in Cancun, after Mr. 
     Uribe told the Venezuelan leader to ``be a man'' and discuss 
     the Venezuelan trade embargo. In the following days, both 
     sides said they would try to bury the hatchet.
       In addition to the 12 people who were ordered to stand 
     trial on murder and terrorism charges, Mr. Velasco also 
     charged Remedios Garcia Albert with the crime of 
     collaboration with a terrorist group, according to the 
     indictment.
       In the document, Mr. Velasco described Ms. Garcia Albert as 
     an alleged member of FARC's international support group 
     residing in Spain and ordered her to present herself in court 
     for questioning on March 24.
       According to court officials, Ms. Garcia Albert, a Spanish 
     national, is free on bail linked to another terrorism case. A 
     lawyer for Ms. Garcia Albert wasn't immediately available for 
     comment.
       Spain doesn't try people in absentia, so a trial for the 
     other 12 people would take place only if they are arrested.
       Latin America's oldest and biggest guerrilla group, the 
     FARC has been fighting to overthrow the Colombian government 
     and install a Marxist dictatorship for four decades. The 
     guerrillas, who in 2001 encircled the capital, kidnapping 
     motorists who ventured out at will, has been put on its heels 
     by Mr. Uribe, a provincial lawyer who has revamped Colombia's 
     military and driven the rebels back into Colombia's jungles.
       In 2008, the Colombian army bombed the jungle hideout of 
     Raul Reyes, the group's No. 2 commander. His laptop included 
     details of attempts by top Venezuelan military and 
     intelligence officials to give money and weapons to the FARC, 
     which, like ETA is considered a terrorist organization by the 
     U.S. and European Union.
       Once a peasant guerrilla army, the FARC lost most of its 
     ideological motivation and turned to drug trafficking, 
     extortion and kidnapping for funding. It now has an estimated 
     8,000 combatants under arms, down from a high of about 
     18,000.

  Mr. LeMIEUX. This article from March 2, 2010, I believe it is a Wall 
Street Journal article, talks about the revelation that has occurred 
that Hugo Chavez and his government were involved with the Basque 
separatist group in Spain in an effort to assassinate the President of 
Colombia, President Uribe.
  This article from March 2, 2010 says that:

       Spanish National Court Judge Eloy Velasco alleged Monday 
     that the Venezuelan government had collaborated with Basque 
     separatist group ETA and Colombia's main guerrilla group 
     [which is the FARC] in a plot against leaders living in or 
     traveling to Spain that began in late 2003.
       The allegations were part of an indictment that ordered 12 
     alleged members of ETA and of the FARC to stand trial on 
     charges of conspiracy to commit murder and terrorism.

  This was an effort to assassinate the President of Colombia. And it 
was done, according to this judge, in combination with the President of 
Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, who is just as bad as Raul Castro in Cuba. He 
is trying to spread the same tyranny to the country of Venezuela, a 
country that was formerly free. He is shutting down media, he is 
arresting college students, he is destroying the economy to the point 
where there are now brownouts because they cannot provide enough 
electricity, a country which has tremendous oil reserves and energy 
reserves.
  But he is not using those to bring money into the country, he is 
shutting the economy down. He is bringing despair to his people. The 
Cuban Government is now involved in the operation of Venezuela. They 
are calling it Vene-Cuba. This is a danger to us. Who is received by 
Hugo Chavez in Venezuela? Ahmadinejad from Iran. And what do we believe 
and what are we concerned about? That Hezbollah and Hamas are now 
setting up shop in Venezuela, in the region as well.
  I have another article that I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record from the Associated Press by Curt Anderson. ``Three men 
charged in Miami with financing Hezbollah.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Associated Press, Feb. 19, 2010]

          Three Men Charged in Miami With Financing Hezbollah

                           (By Curt Anderson)

       Miami.--Three men were charged in an indictment unsealed 
     Friday with illegally exporting electronics and video games 
     to a South American shopping center that U.S. officials claim 
     funnels money to the Hezbollah militant group.
       The men, along with a fourth still being sought in South 
     America, are accused of violating a U.S. ban on transactions 
     involving people or entities on a Treasury Department list of 
     suspected terrorist fundraising networks. Hezbollah, which is 
     fiercely anti-Israel and allied with Iran, is considered a 
     terrorist group by the U.S.
       The shopping center, Galeria Page in Ciudad del Este, 
     Paraguay, was included on the banned list in December 2006 
     along with owner Muhammad Yusif Abdallah. Abdallah is 
     described as a senior Hezbollah leader in a region of South 
     America long considered a haven for counterfeiting, 
     smuggling, piracy and other crimes.
       The suspects arrested in the U.S. Immigration and Customs 
     Enforcement investigation were identified in court documents 
     as Khaled Safadi, 56, and 43-year-old Emilio Gonzalez, both 
     of Miami; and 46-year-old Ulises Talavera-Campos, a citizen 
     of Paraguay.
       Attorney Michael Tein represents Safadi, whom he said is 
     innocent.
       ``Terrorism?'' Tein said. ``More like `The Great Sony 
     Playstation Caper.' The indictment literally charges them 
     with selling Playstation 2 video games to Paraguay. That's 
     some weapon of mass destruction.''
       It wasn't immediately clear if the other two had attorneys, 
     and a bail hearing was scheduled for Wednesday.
       The men also face charges of conspiracy and smuggling. They 
     face a maximum of 35 years each in prison if convicted.
       According to the indictment, the three men ran companies 
     that used the Port of Miami to move goods including Sony 
     Playstation video game consoles, digital cameras and other 
     items that eventually wound up at the Paraguay destination. 
     About $1 million in exports were identified by ICE, the FBI, 
     Treasury officials and other investigators with Miami's Joint 
     Terrorism Task Force.
       The men allegedly used fake invoices, false addresses and 
     phony names to mask the true destination of the goods. The 
     companies involved also were indicted.
       John Morton, assistant Homeland Security secretary for ICE, 
     said the arrests will disrupt a network involved in ``the 
     illicit trade of commodities that support terrorist 
     activities and ultimately threaten the national security of 
     the United States.''
       Hezbollah, which means ``Party of God'' in Arabic, fought a 
     2006 war with Israel and has been blamed for numerous suicide 
     bombings and other attacks. The Lebanon-based group has 
     become a more conventional political entity in recent years, 
     holding seats in Lebanon's parliament as well as two Cabinet 
     posts.

  Mr. LeMIEUX.

       Three men were charged in an indictment unsealed Friday 
     with illegally exporting electronics and video games to a 
     South American shopping center that U.S. officials claim 
     funnels money to a Hezbollah militant group.

[[Page S1220]]

       John Morton, assistant Homeland Security secretary for ICE, 
     said the arrests will disrupt a network in ``the illicit 
     trade of commodities that support terrorist activities and 
     ultimately threaten the national security of the United 
     States.''

  In his book ``The Gathering Storm,'' Winston Churchill described all 
the failed attempts and all the missed opportunities of Europe in the 
years building up in the 1930s to World War II. The failure of courage, 
the missed opportunities to stop Nazi Germany in its rise, Winston 
Churchill described it as a gathering storm because there were signs 
all along the way of fascism and the war machine that Adolf Hitler was 
building. What did the allies do when Germany reestablished its 
presence in the land between France and Germany, in that Rhineland 
region, and sent their troops back in? They did nothing. What did the 
allies do when the Germans went into Czechoslovakia? They did nothing. 
There were these steps along the way. It was a gathering storm that was 
ignored until it was too late.
  The point I am trying to convey is, we have an existential threat 
with Iran. Ahmadinejad is an existential threat to this country. We 
know he is trying to build the ability to have nuclear weapons. We know 
he is talking with Hugo Chavez about mining uranium. That is our 
concern, and the sanctions and the discussions we are having are not 
working. I give credit to Secretary Clinton on recently coming out and 
saying we don't even know that Ahmadinejad is in charge of Iran. It may 
be the Revolutionary Guard, the military, that is running Iran. But the 
time for talk is over. We have to work on the world community to impose 
sanctions against Iran. We need to stop trading as a world community 
with Iran. We need to stop buying oil from them. We need to shut them 
down until the people of Iran can take their country back, bring back 
human rights, democracy, the right to petition the government, the 
right to elect leaders, the right to free speech. Iran was a 
progressive society before 1979. We see the young people in the streets 
who have been beaten down, trying to express their views, trying to say 
the election of Ahmadinejad was not legitimate.
  I explain these things because I believe Iran is trying to set up 
shop in Latin America. We need strong, bolstered friends in the region 
to defend against this. We do not need Hezbollah and Hamas posing a 
national security threat right here in our own hemisphere. There is a 
gathering storm. The steps we take today, if we are strong, bold and 
vigilant, can stop the storm from breaking upon us.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Financial System Reform

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to lay out 
where we are on this effort to do reform of the financial structures of 
our economy. It has been a long undertaking and I will not take a lot 
of time and I will not go into great detail. But I thought it might be 
helpful for my colleagues and others to get some sense or a feel of how 
things are progressing. So I wish to share some thoughts on some major 
issues we are grappling with.
  I wish to begin by thanking the 22 other members of the Banking 
Committee. About one-quarter of the Senate is seated at that table in 
our Banking Committee hearing room. I wish to thank every member for 
their work. We have been deeply involved now for well over a year--more 
than a year; a year and a half--on the issue of how we should shape the 
regulatory structure of reform. This year we have had somewhere around 
80 hearings, listening to a broad range of experts and others who have 
brought their thoughts and ideas, not to mention the informal meetings 
that occur outside of the normal hearing process.
  It has been a very long undertaking, and worthwhile. We have been 
trying to examine the causes of this problem that has been so 
devastating to our country and to others outside of our country--the 
economic near collapse--and then, from that experience, trying to shape 
and set up policies that will fill in those gaps that led us to this 
problem.
  Secondly, we are trying to take steps so that we are prepared to 
deal, as we will at some point in the future have to, with another 
economic crisis as it comes along, and to have what I call an 
architecture or a structure that will allow our system to be able to 
respond far more prudently than it was able to during the last couple 
of years.
  I should add as well a third goal, and that is to create a structure 
to not only grapple with the crisis, but also be a source of innovation 
and creativity for wealth creation and job creation that our financial 
services sector had a reputation of accomplishing, or at least helping 
to accomplish over the years. Those are not inconsistent goals. It is a 
challenge to balance them. It is never perfectly right. But our 
responsibility--both as legislators in this Chamber and the other body, 
as well as the role of regulators and, obviously, those in the private 
sector and public sector--is to try and strike that balance between 
protecting the public and consumers who use financial services, as well 
as to be able to provide a level of confidence to those who use them, 
that the system is going to be safe.
  It doesn't mean you are going to get a guaranteed return when you buy 
a stock, but you ought to feel confident when you deposit your paycheck 
that the institution is going to be there, or you are going to be 
protected from losing those resources.
  So I wish to take a few minutes and share some thoughts on where we 
are. I will quickly add, as well, I wish to pay particular thanks to 
the members of the committee. As many people are aware, Senator Shelby 
and I, my ranking member, have worked closely together over the last 3 
years that I have been chairman of this committee on a wide range of 
issues, and I am grateful to him for his efforts. He is, obviously, 
significantly involved in this debate. I wish to thank Bob Corker, the 
Senator from Tennessee. He is a new Member of this Chamber, but has 
performed, I think, a tremendous task of trying to sit down and work 
out the differences, and they are complex and they are difficult. 
Nonetheless, he has rolled up his sleeves and demonstrated a level of 
maturity and interest far beyond the years of his service. All of us--
and I, certainly--wish to thank him publicly as well for his efforts, 
and that of his staff, trying to help us get there.
  Other members of the committee, including Jack Reed of Rhode Island, 
Chuck Schumer, Mark Warner, have taken on particular heavy lifts, and I 
will talk about them in a minute as I discuss what is going on, along 
with Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Mike Crapo of Idaho. So there have 
been a lot of people involved in this as we go forward. I would be 
remiss if I didn't acknowledge their hard work and that of their staffs 
over these many months.
  We are still not there yet. I am not here to announce an agreement or 
to tell my colleagues we have reached a consensus. We are trying to get 
there, but we are not there yet. We are making an effort to see if we 
can't develop a set of proposals that will enjoy broad support in this 
institution as we go forward.
  So we have all seen, of course, the devastating consequences. I 
hardly need to spend much time enumerating them here. People are living 
them every day, and they don't necessarily need to hear them outlined. 
However, I will just share again what all of us are painfully aware of.
  Mr. President, 8.4 million jobs have been lost since December of 
2007. The unemployment rate is currently at 9.7 percent. It has been 
obviously far too high. I think all of us know, as the Presiding 
Officer does, that there are pockets in our country where that 9.7 is 
maybe half the unemployment rate in certain areas of rural America and 
urban America. An astonishing 6.1 million Americans have been without a 
job for half a year or more in our Nation. Millions of our fellow 
citizens who did nothing wrong have nonetheless lost homes, their 
retirement security, their jobs, their health care. Small businesses 
have been unable to access credit and have been forced to lay off 
workers, reduce production, or even have

[[Page S1221]]

had to shut their doors. Working class families in our country have 
seen their wealth decline significantly, and, worst of all, today we 
remain entirely vulnerable to yet another crisis.
  We haven't finished this work, and if something were to happen again 
tomorrow, as much as we have been working on this issue, we haven't 
passed the necessary legislation to minimize a crisis bringing us close 
to the brink of financial collapse as the one we are presently in did.
  So, obviously, the status quo--I am getting kind of tired of using 
those words; business as usual, whatever words you want to use to 
describe it--cannot persist. Congress, in my view, must pass 
comprehensive, meaningful reform of our financial system. My hope and 
intention is to do everything I can in the waning days of my service 
after 30 years here to achieve that goal.
  We have to correct the failures that allowed us to get into this 
mess, but we must also develop a regulatory system that is prepared for 
the next one, and one that is going to invite, as well, the kind of 
creativity and innovation that allow for job creation and wealth 
creation that our system has in the past provided.
  Over a year ago, the Banking Committee, as I pointed out earlier, set 
out to investigate the causes of financial crises and the 
vulnerabilities that lie in our financial regulatory structure. Over 
the last year or more, we have held literally dozens and dozens of 
gatherings, hearings, informal and formal meetings. We have listened to 
hundreds of experts in a wide variety of fields who have been either 
affected by, or who have offered some ideas as to how we can create 
this architecture about which I have spoken. We have examined and 
reexamined all sets of proposals sent to us by the White House, the 
Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and others.
  In November of last year, I offered my colleagues a discussion draft 
of where I was. I didn't suggest it had cosponsors or backers, but I 
thought people ought to know where the chairman of the committee was, 
so I laid out a broad proposal in these areas. It certainly produced a 
discussion, I can tell my colleagues. Not always a welcome one from 
certain corners, but I thought people ought to know at least where I 
stood on these issues. If I were going to write this alone and I didn't 
want anyone else to offer their ideas and suggestions, I had some 
pretty strong and sound ideas as to where we ought to be. I then asked 
my fellow committee members, Democrats and Republicans, to work on 
major parts of the bill. It is so complex and so big and broad, the 
subject matter, that I didn't think any one member, even a chairman and 
a ranking member, could necessarily put their arms around all of it. So 
I asked various members who expressed an interest in various subject 
matters if they would take on the responsibility, a Democrat and a 
Republican working together, to see if they could come up with some 
ideas that would be sound, intelligent reforms of the financial system.
  It has been an enormous task. As I said a moment ago, these are 
incredibly complex issues, but with the good work done by so many on 
the committee, I believe we are well on our way to producing a very 
strong bill. The problems with our economy run system-wide, and while 
there is the temptation by some to address only one or two issues and 
claim victory and call it a day, we are working in our committee on a 
bill that will attack these problems and vulnerabilities in a rather 
comprehensive way, one that we believe will make a difference.
  The bill as we fashion it is designed to achieve four major 
accomplishments: No. 1--and the first priority, I would argue, if I had 
to prioritize whether the others fall into this category--is ending 
too-big-to-fail bailouts. That, to me, is the most important thing we 
can achieve here.

  Never, ever again should the American taxpayer of this country be 
forced to write a check, which they did, because there is an implicit 
guarantee that the Federal Government of the United States will bail 
out a company lest it threaten the stability of the economy as a whole. 
It will make it so undesirable for a company to get too big or too 
complex with new capital, new leverage requirements, supervisory 
requirements, and set up a mechanism so large, complex companies can be 
shut down through bankruptcy or resolution in a way that does not 
threaten the economy or expose the American taxpayers, as they have 
been. It is a resolution, it is a bankruptcy, it is a receivership, and 
it is painful to creditors, to shareholders, and to the management who 
bear the burden but not taxpayers.
  We are very close to achieving that. Again, I thank Mark Warner of 
Virginia and Bob Corker of Tennessee who dealt with this issue, this 
and systemic risk, which I will mention in a minute. They worked I 
don't know how many hours sitting down trying to fashion this 
resolution mechanism. But the idea that we would watch the American 
taxpayer write out a check for $700 billion, knowing the reaction of 
the American public--by the way, in the absence of what we are trying 
to do here, I think we did the right thing. Had we not done it, the 
financial problem would have been a lot worse. We never again ought to 
be put in that position, where that is the only alternative we have. 
This bill will address that issue.
  Secondly, we create an early warning system in the economy so 
somebody is looking out for the next big problem. The bill would create 
what we call a systemic risk council--that is our goal--that will have 
the job of looking across the economy to identify unsafe products, 
activities, institutions that could threaten the economy as a whole in 
the future. We cannot afford to be caught off guard again by obvious 
weaknesses in our system because no one is responsible for taking a 
broad view.
  Again, it is not going to stop everything, but we did not have this 
ability in the past. Again, Mark Warner and Bob Corker have worked very 
hard on a resolution mechanism and systemic risk and all of us owe them 
a debt of gratitude for their efforts.
  Third, we bring transparency and accountability to the exotic 
instruments, such as derivatives and credit default swaps, things that 
are rather arcane to most Americans, to put it mildly, but have been 
lurking too long in the dark and were able to cause untold damage to 
our economy because they lacked transparency and regulation. We change 
that in this bill. That is our hope anyway, if we get to the conclusion 
of it.
  We have to regulate these activities that left investors and our 
economy open to the tremendous risks they did not even know existed. 
Literally, billions of dollars being traded--frankly, gambled--behind 
closed doors drove our economy to the verge of collapse. Senator Jack 
Reed of Rhode Island, Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, and their 
staffs have been working on this issue over many weeks to try and come 
up with an intelligent, thoughtful, well-drafted set of proposals on 
these exotic instruments, particularly derivatives. I thank them for 
the job they have done, and I am confident when our colleagues have had 
a chance to be briefed about their efforts, there will be broad-based 
support for what is included in our bill.
  We have to rein in these crazy compensation packages that have 
outraged the public and hurt companies by rewarding short-term profits 
and wild risk-taking. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, Senator Mike 
Crapo of Idaho, and their staffs have been working on governance 
issues. More work needs to be done on this issue. I thank both our 
colleagues, again a Democrat and Republican, for trying to come up with 
ideas on governance issues that will avoid some of the problems with 
which we are all too familiar.
  We create--and one that has attracted the most attention because of 
the issues involved--a strong and independent consumer protection 
watchdog, one that has never existed but has come to financial 
services. It is somewhat ironic we have a Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, so if we buy a toy for our children or a product or an 
appliance and it does not work or it causes us great harm or danger, 
there is a place called the Consumer Product Safety Commission which 
will protect us from these hazardous appliances.
  Yet when it comes to financial services, we have had no place to go 
to get a similar kind of protection. That analogy has been drawn by 
others in the past, and I think it is an appropriate one.

[[Page S1222]]

  We have undertaken this effort. It is controversial because I think 
there are a lot of fears people have about what we are trying to 
achieve with all this. Yet if you look back and you watch what has 
unfolded over the last couple years, and particularly where you see 
some of these barons of the financial services sector reaping millions 
of dollars in bonuses after their companies have been shored up through 
taxpayer efforts, and yet the very people who had their homes, their 
jobs, their retirement, their health care, their life savings put at 
risk, what do they get, having come up with the tax dollars to protect 
these industries? We want to see to it that we never have again the 
consumer of financial products be unprotected when we start examining 
these issues.
  We are working on this issue to put together what I set out as 
principles that should be included in a consumer protection watchdog. 
The failure to protect consumers, as I think most people know, led to 
some of the dangerous practices we saw and put our economy at so much 
risk. People were given mortgages they did not understand and could not 
afford. To ensure strong consumer protection, the real question is: 
Will this office have the independence and the authority it needs to 
get the job done to take care of consumers?
  I focused on four principles from the very beginning of this debate 
involving this consumer protection idea we hope to produce. One, that 
it have an independent head appointed by the President of the United 
States and confirmed by this body, the Senate; second, that it have an 
independent budget so the office will have the resources it needs to do 
the job; third, that it have the autonomy to craft rules to protect 
consumers; and fourth, an ability to enforce those rules as well.
  With these features, the office, I think, can act to protect 
consumers from the kinds of abuses we have seen, such as skyrocketing 
credit card interest rates, an explosion in checking account fees or 
predatory lending by the mortgage industry. Where rent space is less 
important--not unimportant, less important--what power and authority it 
has is the critical question.
  Obviously, we want to do this in a way that does not jeopardize the 
safety and soundness of institutions. I do not believe there 
necessarily is any conflict, although some suggest there may be.
  We are trying to provide, as well, a mechanism to resolve when, in 
fact, we have some conflict between safety and soundness and consumer 
protection. I understand that concern. We are trying to accommodate 
that while simultaneously maintaining the independence and autonomy of 
this agency.
  Our goal is to end the status quo, as I said earlier--words I am 
getting tired of using, but doing nothing is unacceptable--and to 
create a system where honest businesses, large and small, can thrive on 
a level playing field, where middle-class families can find work, 
invest with confidence, and achieve the dreams they have for themselves 
and their children.
  Today, I am pleased to report that good work has been done by 
Democrats and Republicans both on the Banking Committee to put 
financial reform in a strong position. While we do not have a 
bipartisan agreement yet at all, we are trying to. I don't know if it 
will happen. I am optimistic it can happen. I have been around here 
long enough to know these things can fall apart easily. It is fragile. 
Complex issues you think you resolved can produce unintended 
consequences. Most importantly, getting it right--while I would like to 
get it done soon, I want to make sure we do it correctly and properly.
  This is one of the hardest tasks I have been asked to undertake in my 
years here, to try and fashion these proposals in a way that can bring 
broad support in this institution. We do not have an agreement yet, but 
because I have colleagues, such as the ones I mentioned on the 
Democratic side, such as Jack Reed, Mark Warner, Chuck Schumer, Tim 
Johnson--I can go down the list of those who worked on the issues--and 
I also have colleagues such as Bob Corker, Dick Shelby, Judd Gregg, and 
others to make an effort on that side to see if we can make agreements.
  I know everything we are hearing about Congress these days, that 
nothing seems to be working here, but we are making an effort to come 
up with a proposal that will achieve those goals, a good, strong bill 
and one that will enjoy good, strong support in this institution.
  I hope I have not talked too long, but I wished to give at least a 
flavor of where things are today. As I said, we are not done yet. We 
are in a pretty strong position to achieve a good, strong bill and one 
we can be proud of in this institution.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


    Amendment No. 3335 as Further Modified, Amendment No. 3383, as 
   Modified, Amendment No. 3374, as Modified, Amendment No. 3397, as 
 Modified, Amendment No. 3411, as Modified, Amendment No. 3416 En Bloc

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for the following amendments to be called up and reported by 
number, en bloc; further, that the Landrieu amendment No. 3335, which 
is pending, be further modified with the changes at the desk; that the 
remaining amendments listed here, except amendment No. 3416, be 
modified with the changes at the desk: Wicker amendment No. 3383; Bayh-
Vitter amendment No. 3374; Rockefeller amendment No. 3397; Roberts 
amendment No. 3411; Lincoln amendment No. 3416; that the amendments, as 
modified or as further modified, be considered and agreed to en bloc, 
and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the 
table en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                Amendment No. 3335, as Further Modified

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. EXTENSION OF LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT RULES FOR 
                   BUILDINGS IN GO ZONES.

       Section 1400N(c)(5) is amended by striking ``January 1, 
     2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 2013''.

     SEC. 6__. INCREASE IN INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES.

       (a) Failure To File Correct Information Returns.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 
     (b)(2)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$50'' and inserting ``$100''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (a)(1), 
     (d)(1)(A), and (e)(3)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by 
     striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''.
       (b) Reduction Where Correction Within 30 Days.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``$15'' and inserting ``$30''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(1)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(B) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
       (c) Reduction Where Correction on or Before August 1.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$60''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(2)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(C) of section 6721are each amended by striking 
     ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
       (d) Aggregate Annual Limitations for Persons With Gross 
     Receipts of Not More Than $5,000,000.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 6721(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``$500,000'',
       (2) by striking ``$25,000'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``$75,000'', and
       (3) by striking ``$50,000'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``$200,000''.
       (e) Penalty in Case of Intentional Disregard.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 6721(e) is amended by striking ``$100'' and 
     inserting ``$250''.
       (f) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 6721 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Adjustment for Inflation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fifth calendar year beginning 
     after 2012, each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a), 
     (b), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(A) thereof), and (e) shall 
     be increased by such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-
     living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) determined 
     by substituting `calendar year 2011' for `calendar year 1992' 
     in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount adjusted under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) is not less than $75,000 and is not a multiple of 
     $500, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest 
     multiple of $500, and

[[Page S1223]]

       ``(B) is not described in subparagraph (A) and is not a 
     multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the next 
     lowest multiple of $10.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to information returns required to 
     be filed on or after January 1, 2011.


                    Amendment No. 3383, as Modified

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend tax-
     exempt bond financing in the GO Zone, and for other purposes)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. TAX-EXEMPT BOND FINANCING.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (2)(D) and (7)(C) of section 
     1400N(a) are each amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2012''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 702(d)(1) and 704(a) 
     of the Heartland Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2008 (Public Law 
     110-343; 122 Stat. 3913, 3919) are each amended by 
     striking``January 1, 2011'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2012''.

     SEC. 6__. APPLICATION OF LEVY TO PAYMENTS TO FEDERAL VENDORS 
                   RELATING TO PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 6331(h)(3) is amended by striking 
     ``goods or services'' and inserting ``property, goods, or 
     services''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to levies approved after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                    Amendment No. 3374, as Modified

 (Purpose: To clarify the low-income housing credits that are eligible 
     for the low-income housing elections, and for other purposes)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. ELECTION FOR REFUNDABLE LOW-INCOME HOUSING CREDIT 
                   FOR 2010.

       Subsection (n) of section 42, as added by section 121, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(n) Election for Refundable Credits.--
       ``(1) In general.--The housing credit agency of each State 
     shall be allowed a credit in an amount equal to such State's 
     2010 low-income housing refundable credit election amount, 
     which shall be payable by the Secretary as provided in 
     paragraph (5).
       ``(2) 2010 low-income housing refundable credit election 
     amount.--For purposes of this subsection, the term `2010 low-
     income housing refundable credit election amount' means, with 
     respect to any State, such amount as the State may elect 
     which does not exceed 85 percent of the product of--
       ``(A) the sum of--
       ``(i) 100 percent of the State housing credit ceiling for 
     2010 which is attributable to amounts described in clauses 
     (i) and (iii) of subsection (h)(3)(C), plus any increase in 
     the State housing credit ceiling for 2010 made by reason of 
     section 1400N(c) (including as such section is applied by 
     reason of sections 702(d)(2) and 704(b) of the Tax Extenders 
     and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008), and
       ``(ii) 40 percent of the State housing credit ceiling for 
     2010 which is attributable to amounts described in clauses 
     (ii) and (iv) of such subsection, plus any increase in the 
     State housing credit ceiling for 2010 made by reason of the 
     application of such section 702(d)(2) and 704(b), multiplied 
     by
       ``(B) 10.
     For purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), in the case of any area 
     to which section 702(d)(2) or 704(b) of the Tax Extenders and 
     Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 applies, section 
     1400N(c)(1)(A) shall be applied without regard to clause (i)
       ``(3) Coordination with non-refundable credit.--For 
     purposes of this section, the amounts described in clauses 
     (i) through (iv) of subsection (h)(3)(C) with respect to any 
     State for 2010 shall each be reduced by so much of such 
     amount as is taken into account in determining the amount of 
     the credit allowed with respect to such State under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(4) Special rule for basis.--Basis of a qualified low-
     income building shall not be reduced by the amount of any 
     payment made under this subsection.
       ``(5) Payment of credit; use to finance low-income 
     buildings.--The Secretary shall pay to the housing credit 
     agency of each State an amount equal to the credit allowed 
     under paragraph (1). Rules similar to the rules of 
     subsections (c) and (d) of section 1602 of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009 shall apply with 
     respect to any payment made under this paragraph, except that 
     such subsection (d) shall be applied by substituting `January 
     1, 2012' for `January 1, 2011'.''.

     SEC. 6__. LOW-INCOME HOUSING GRANT ELECTION.

       (a) Clarification of Eligibility of Low-Income Housing 
     Credits for Low-Income Housing Grant Election.--Paragraph (1) 
     of section 1602(b) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Tax Act of 2009 is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``, plus any increase in the State housing 
     credit ceiling for 2009 attributable to any State housing 
     credit ceiling returned in 2009 to the State by reason of 
     section 1400N(c) of such Code (including as such section is 
     applied by reason of sections 702(d)(2) and 704(b) of the Tax 
     Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008)'' 
     after ``1986'' in subparagraph (A), and
       (2) by inserting ``, plus any increase in the State housing 
     credit ceiling for 2009 attributable to any additional State 
     housing credit ceiling made by reason of the application of 
     such section 702(d)(2) and 704(b)'' after ``such section'' in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (b) Application of Additional Housing Credit Amount for 
     Purposes of 2009 Grant Election.--Subsection (b) of section 
     1602 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 
     2009, as amended by subsection (a), is amended by adding at 
     the end the following flush sentence:
     ``For purposes of paragraph (1)(B), in the case of any area 
     to which section 702(d)(2) or 704(b) of the Tax Extenders and 
     Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 applies, section 
     1400N(c)(1)(A) of such Code shall be applied without regard 
     to clause (i).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply as if included in the enactment of section 1602 
     of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act of 2009.

     SEC. 6__. ROLLOVERS FROM ELECTIVE DEFERRAL PLANS TO ROTH 
                   DESIGNATED ACCOUNTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 402A(c) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4) Taxable rollovers to designated roth accounts.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding sections 402(c), 
     403(b)(8), and 457(e)(16), in the case of any distribution to 
     which this paragraph applies--
       ``(i) there shall be included in gross income any amount 
     which would be includible were it not part of a qualified 
     rollover contribution,
       ``(ii) section 72(t) shall not apply, and
       ``(iii) unless the taxpayer elects not to have this clause 
     apply, any amount required to be included in gross income for 
     any taxable year beginning in 2010 by reason of this 
     paragraph shall be so included ratably over the 2-taxable-
     year period beginning with the first taxable year beginning 
     in 2011.
     Any election under clause (iii) for any distributions during 
     a taxable year may not be changed after the due date for such 
     taxable year.
       ``(B) Distributions to which paragraph applies.--In the 
     case of an applicable retirement plan which includes a 
     qualified Roth contribution program, this paragraph shall 
     apply to a distribution from such plan other than from a 
     designated Roth account which is contributed in a qualified 
     rollover contribution to the designated Roth account 
     maintained under such plan for the benefit of the individual 
     to whom the distribution is made.
       ``(C) Other rules.--The rules of subparagraphs (D), (E), 
     and (F) of section 408A(d)(3) (as in effect for taxable years 
     beginning after 2009) shall apply for purposes of this 
     paragraph.''.


                    amendment no. 3397, as modified

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the 
requirements for exterior windows, doors, and skylights to be eligible 
for the credit for nonbusiness energy property, and for other purposes)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS FOR WINDOWS, DOORS, AND 
                   SKYLIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE CREDIT FOR 
                   NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (4) of section 25C(c) is amended 
     by striking ``unless'' and all that follows and inserting 
     ``unless--
       ``(A) in the case of any component placed in service after 
     the date which is 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010, 
     such component meets the criteria for such components 
     established by the 2010 Energy Star Program Requirements for 
     Residential Windows, Doors, and Skylights, Version 5.0 (or 
     any subsequent version of such requirements which is in 
     effect after January 4, 2010),
       ``(B) in the case of any component placed in service after 
     the date of the enactment of the American Workers, State, and 
     Business Relief Act of 2010 and on or before the date which 
     is 90 days after such date, such component meets the criteria 
     described in subparagraph (A) or is equal to or below a U 
     factor of 0.30 and SHGC of 0.30, and
       ``(C) in the case of any component which is a garage door, 
     such component is equal to or below a U factor of 0.30 and 
     SHGC of 0.30.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6__. PARTICIPANTS IN GOVERNMENT SECTION 457 PLANS 
                   ALLOWED TO TREAT ELECTIVE DEFERRALS AS ROTH 
                   CONTRIBUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 402A(e)(1) (defining applicable 
     retirement plan) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the end of 
     subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(C) an eligible deferred compensation plan (as defined in 
     section 457(b)) of an eligible employer described in section 
     457(e)(1)(A).''.
       (b) Elective Deferrals.--Section 402A(e)(2) (defining 
     elective deferral) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Elective deferral.--The term `elective deferral' 
     means--
       ``(A) any elective deferral described in subparagraph (A) 
     or (C) of section 402(g)(3), and
       ``(B) any elective deferral of compensation by an 
     individual under an eligible deferred compensation plan (as 
     defined in section 457(b)) of an eligible employer described 
     in section 457(e)(1)(A).''.

[[Page S1224]]

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2010.


                    amendment no. 3411, as modified

(Purpose: To extend the special allowance for certain property, and for 
                            other purposes)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. 6__. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR CERTAIN 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 15345(d)(1)(D) of the Food 
     Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246) is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2009'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2010''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 15345(d)(1)(F) of such 
     Act is amended by striking ``January 1, 2008'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2010''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in section 15345 of the Food 
     Conservation and Energy Act of 2008.

     SEC. 6__. APPLICATION OF BAD CHECKS PENALTY TO ELECTRONIC 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6657 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``If any check or money order in payment of 
     any amount'' and inserting ``If any instrument in payment, by 
     any commercially acceptable means, of any amount'', and
       (2) by striking ``such check'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``such instrument''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to instruments tendered after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.


                           amendment no. 3416

(Purpose: To provide grants for energy efficient appliances in lieu of 
                              tax credits)

       On page 268, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:

     SEC. __. GRANTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENT APPLIANCES IN LIEU OF 
                   TAX CREDIT.

       In the case of any taxable year which includes the last day 
     of calendar year 2009 or calendar year 2010, a taxpayer who 
     elects to waive the credit which would otherwise be 
     determined with respect to the taxpayer under section 45M of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for such taxable year shall 
     be treated as making a payment against the tax imposed under 
     subtitle A of such Code for such taxable year in an amount 
     equal to 85 percent of the amount of the credit which would 
     otherwise be so determined. Such payment shall be treated as 
     made on the later of the due date of the return of such tax 
     or the date on which such return is filed. Elections under 
     this section may be made separately for 2009 and 2010, but 
     once made shall be irrevocable.


                Amendment No. 3430 to Amendment No. 3336

          (Purpose: To modify the pension funding provisions)

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be set aside and that amendment No. 3430 then be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for Mr. Isakson, for 
     himself, and Mr. Cardin, proposes an amendment numbered 3430 
     to amendment No. 3336.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to spend a minute talking about some 
remarks I made this morning, especially in light of how they are being 
irresponsibly mischaracterized by those seeking to score political 
points.
  Today, we learned that 36,000 Americans lost their jobs in February. 
Those families don't need today's Department of Labor report or anyone 
else in Washington to tell them what that means for putting food on the 
table or making car payments or utility payments or affording their 
health care. It is devastating news. If we are going to discuss the 
state of our economy and the direction in which it is going, if we are 
going to talk about it like adults, let us take a step back and put the 
number into context.
  Economists, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News 
Wire, and other publications believed that 75,000 to 80,000 Americans 
were going to lose their jobs last month. That is more than double what 
the actual number turned out to be. That number, of course, is still 
too high. But I was glad this morning when I heard the unemployment 
number proved the pundits wrong by some 50 percent. Those economists 
thought the employment rate was going to go up. Well, it didn't. But 
the unemployment rate is still too high, and anyone from Nevada can 
tell anyone who wants to listen about that fact.
  We could ask the 40,000 Americans who economists thought were in the 
line of fire but who still had a job to go to this morning, and they 
will tell you that they were relieved February wasn't as bad as 
expected. And remember, if you compare where we were last year and 
where we are today, if you compare where we were before the Recovery 
Act and where we are now, there is no question we stopped a terrible 
situation from getting even worse.
  In the 3 months before the Recovery Act, 750,000 to 800,000 people 
lost their jobs--in those 3 months alone. Then the Recovery Act kicked 
in, and in the last 3 months, that number is down from 750,000 to 
36,000. That is not all. In the quarter before the Recovery Act, the 
economy shrank by more than 6 percent. In the last quarter, the economy 
grew by 6 percent. Expert after expert has said as many as 2\1/2\ 
million people who have jobs today would not have them had we not had 
the Recovery Act. Expert after expert has said our recession would have 
become another depression if we had done nothing, as some urged. Going 
from 750,000 to 800,000 job losses to 36,000 is not the end, but it is 
a step in the right direction. Taking our economy from a 6-percent 
contraction to 6 percent growth is not the end, but it is a step in the 
right direction.
  People should start looking literally at the glass being half full 
rather than half empty. People should start betting on the success of 
this country, not the failure, as some have done.
  The President said this morning that the 6-percent growth we had last 
quarter is not the end, but it is a step in the right direction. And as 
he said this morning, it is still more than we should tolerate. We 
don't pretend for a minute it is enough. I know Nevada's families and 
businesses are hurting, and that is why we are doing even more to put 
people back to work and why we worked so hard to pass a jobs bill last 
month that the House passed yesterday. That is so important.
  The jobs bill is going to be great for small businesses. It will save 
a million highway jobs, allow small businesses to hire people who have 
been off work for 60 days, give small businesses an incentive to buy 
things and write them off for up to $250,000. They do not have to 
depreciate it. And the Buy America Bonds, one of the premier successful 
issues in our Recovery Act that Governors and local officials wanted, 
is in the bill we passed. I was at the White House, along with others, 
yesterday where the President signed a bill that rewards businesses 
with tax cuts for keeping jobs here at home and not sending them 
overseas.
  But again, let us put this in context. What was the response from my 
friends on the other side of the aisle? It is incredible. We have been 
told that the bill will create more than 200,000 jobs--the Travel 
Promotion Act. What did my friends on the other side say? They agreed 
with some of the ideas in the bill, but they decided to play politics 
and they voted against it anyway, with rare exception.
  It is why we fought so hard to extend unemployment health benefits 
for those thrown out in the streets by the Republican recession. What 
was the response of our Republican colleagues to preserve unemployment 
compensation with unemployment health benefits? The response from my 
Republican colleagues, even though they said they agreed with helping 
those who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own, was they 
delayed and delayed and let the benefits expire. And when thousands 
were told to go home from their jobs without pay, and with many more at 
risk, they sat silently by.
  That is why we passed the Travel Promotion Act, which the President 
signed yesterday--a bill that would create jobs and cut the deficit by 
$\1/2\ billion. It is a bill that will bring foreign tourists to the 
United States so they can spend their money all across our country. But 
how did the Republicans react? They delayed it for months and months 
and months and months, only to vote for it in the end.
  We will keep going. We will pass a long-term extension of 
unemployment insurance, health benefits for the unemployed and tax cuts 
for small businesses. We will create incentives for companies to invest 
in renewable energy--projects that will make States

[[Page S1225]]

such as Nevada the leaders of the new clean energy economy, with green 
jobs from coast to coast that can never be outsourced. It is why we 
will finish the job on health care reform, which both bodies of 
Congress have already passed--a plan with contents my State and the 
country overwhelmingly support.
  Fixing our broken health care system will save lives, save money, and 
save Medicaid and Medicare, but it will also save jobs--as many as 34 
million over the next decade. The reason each of these steps is 
important--the Recovery Act, our jobs bill, extension of unemployment 
and health benefits, promoting tourism, tax cuts and incentives, and 
health care reform--is because they each add certainty and security to 
our businesses, our States, and our country. They each represent a 
strong new brick along the road to recovery that we need to build.
  Yet for some reason, those on the other side simply can't bring 
themselves to admit what we are doing is working. We are nowhere 
finished with that work, but the people of Nevada and the rest of the 
American people know that the emergency steps we took and the ones we 
will take have turned us around and now we are facing in the right 
direction. We have a long way to go, as the President said, and we will 
move past this.
  So I encourage my Republican friends to remember this critical 
context before their political reflections lead them to make claims 
they know to be false. I warn them once again that this country has no 
place and no patience for those who root for failure.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Baucus 
     substitute amendment No. 3336 to H.R. 4213, the Tax Extenders 
     Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Richard J. Durbin, Roland W. 
           Burris, Kent Conrad, Benjamin L. Cardin, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Robert Menendez, Daniel 
           K. Inouye, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jon Tester, Bill 
           Nelson, Charles E. Schumer, Kay R. Hagan, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Tom Harkin.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send another cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 4213, the Tax 
     Extenders Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Richard J. Durbin, Roland W. 
           Burris, Kent Conrad, Benjamin L. Cardin, Patrick J. 
           Leahy, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Robert Menendez, Daniel 
           K. Inouye, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jon Tester, Bill 
           Nelson, Charles E. Schumer, Kay R. Hagan, Sheldon 
           Whitehouse, Tom Harkin.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, 
March 9, after the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 4213, it 
proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments, in the order 
listed, and with no amendments in order to the amendments; and that 
prior to each vote there be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form, and after the first vote in this 
sequence, the succeeding votes be limited to 10 minutes:
  Baucus amendment No. 3429 on the subject matter of the Coburn 
amendment No. 3358; the Coburn amendment No. 3358; the Murray amendment 
No. 3356, as modified; the Republican leader, or designee, amendment on 
the same subject matter as the Murray amendment No. 3356; that at 2:30 
p.m., Tuesday, March 9, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to 
invoke cloture on the Baucus substitute amendment No. 3336, with the 
mandatory quorum being waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________