[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 82 (Thursday, May 27, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4484-S4507]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--
Continued
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the
urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform in the United States.
Earlier today, the Senate considered a number of proposals for border
security, and there has been extensive media attention to an
administration proposal to dispatch substantial numbers of the National
Guard for border security.
The Senate and the House of Representatives wrestled with this issue
in 2006. Each House produced a bill. At that time, I chaired the
Judiciary Committee and managed the bill in committee and on the floor.
The Senate bill, known as the McCain-Kennedy bill, provided for
comprehensive immigration reform.
The House passed a bill which dealt only with Border Patrol and
employer verification. For reasons which need not be commented upon
now, there was no conference and that bill languished.
In the following year, Senator Reid, the majority leader, asked
Senator Kennedy and me to lead an informal group to try to structure a
comprehensive immigration reform, with the decision not to run it
through committee, and that effort was not successful.
As a result of the failure of Congress to act, we have seen many
States and municipalities enact legislation to try to deal with this
issue, in the absence of what Congress has a duty to do and should have
been doing. Most recently, the Arizona law has produced enormous
controversy.
The Arizona law provides that a failure to carry immigration
documents would be a crime and give police broad power to detain anyone
suspected of being in the country illegally. The essential provisions
invite racial profiling, which is highly questionable on constitutional
grounds. Litigation is now pending to have that act--to declare it as
being unconstitutional on its face.
When Congress failed to legislate in 2006 and the informal group
designated by Majority Leader Reid was unsuccessful in coming up with a
bill, I introduced a draft bill on July 30, 2007, as reported in the
Congressional Record at S. 10231, which dealt with an effort to remove
the fugitive status from undocumented immigrants. It was my thought at
the time if we did not get into the complex issues which had proven so
troublesome in 2007 and earlier in 2006, that we might be able to make
some substantial progress moving forward for comprehensive immigration
reform.
My thought at that time was to remove the fugitive status but not to
provide for a path to citizenship. I made that suggestion even though
my preference was with the Senate bill enacted the year before which
did provide a path to citizenship. Even that path to citizenship was
going to be long delayed. It would take at least 8 years, it was
estimated, to clear up the backlog of pending applications for
citizenship, and another 5 years to deal with the 12 million
undocumented immigrants, so that there was not a whole lot of practical
difference in eliminating the path to citizenship. That could always be
taken up at a later time.
But if the fugitive status was eliminated, that would bring most of
the 12 million undocumented immigrants--or at least calculated to bring
most of the 12 million undocumented immigrants--out of the shadows and
identify those who were holding responsible jobs, paying taxes, and
raising their families, in many instances with children who were
American citizens. This approach was postulated on the obvious
proposition that we cannot deport 12 million people. It is simply
impossible to take them into detention and to have them housed pending
deportation proceedings. Bringing the undocumented immigrants out of
the shadows would provide an opportunity to identify those who were
convicted criminals where they posed a real threat.
At that time I visited a number of detention centers where
undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes were
[[Page S4485]]
held and introduced legislation which would have accelerated the
deportation of those who were criminals and were a threat to our
society, demonstrated by their prior conduct. But we continue to have
the problem of undocumented immigrants living in the shadows, afraid of
being taken into custody, especially in Arizona, and concerns
everywhere with the prospect of the Arizona law being enacted other
places, that they continue to be at the mercy of unscrupulous
employers. We have enormous areas of need for temporary workers. That
is a proposition which many of my colleagues have been urging and which
I think needs to be acted upon.
We have the suggestion of the so-called DREAM Act which I had at one
time cosponsored. I later came to the view that if we cherry-picked--if
we take the DREAM Act, if we take temporary workers, if we take the
expansion of visas, which is necessary when so many people want to come
to this country who would be very productive in our high-tech society--
Ph.D.s, highly educated individuals--that if we move along any of those
lines and cherry-picked, it would take away a lot of the impetus for
the notion to have comprehensive immigration reform.
So I continue to believe it is not desirable, not advisable to
cherry-pick, even though some of those individual items may be very
meritorious on their own.
In light of what has happened in Arizona and in light of what the
administration is proposing on the use of the National Guard, it is my
view it is more imperative than ever that the Congress face up to its
responsibility, tackle this issue, notwithstanding the political
pitfalls, and to deal with it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my prepared
statement be printed in the Congressional Record as if read in full,
and the abbreviated statement I made on July 30, 2007, be printed in
the Record since these two statements more comprehensively summarize my
views on this subject.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Senator Arlen Specter on the Need for Comprehensive
Immigration Reform
Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address
comprehensive immigration reform. I am fully committed to
working with the Obama Administration, and a bipartisan group
of Senators, to enact a comprehensive immigration reform law
that improves our economy, reunites families, and strengthens
our borders.
I have long supported comprehensive immigration reform. As
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress, I
worked closely with Senator Kennedy on, and cosponsored, the
bi-partisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. In
the 110th Congress, I continued to work with Senator Kennedy
to construct a bi-partisan agreement, called ``the Grand
Bargain,'' to achieve this much needed reform. Our efforts
resulted in the introduction of the Comprehensive Immigration
Reform Act of 2007. Both bills fell prey to partisan
politics.
We must renew our efforts. The immigration system in the
United States is inadequate to meet the needs of our country
in the 21st century. An insufficient number of visas are made
available to meet the changing needs of the U.S. economy and
labor market. Eligible family members are forced to wait for
years--some for decades--to be reunited with families living
in the United States. An overburdened system unfairly delays
the integration of immigrants who want to become U.S.
citizens. Unscrupulous employers who exploit undocumented
immigrant workers undercut the law-abiding American
businesses and harm all workers. Finally, as we all know too
well, the billions of dollars spent on enforcement-only
initiatives in the past have done little to stop the flow of
unauthorized immigrants into our country.
Much work needs to be done. One end of the political
spectrum will criticize us for creating a path to citizenship
for those immigrants who entered without authorization, and
those on the other end of the political spectrum will
criticize us for not being sufficiently compassionate. But we
have a public duty, indeed a moral imperative, to come to
grips with this issue. We are a nation that throughout its
history has welcomed and been made richer by immigrants. Our
country was built on the contributions of hard working and
ambitious immigrants, like my father Harry, who emigrated
from Russia in 1911. The path to American citizenship is a
path my father had and others today deserve as well. The time
for comprehensive immigration reform is now.
The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (or
DREAM) Act amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 by eliminating the
restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational
benefits to unauthorized aliens by allowing unauthorized
aliens to apply to adjust their status. The bill enables
eligible unauthorized students to adjust to conditional
permanent resident status provided the student: (1) entered
the United States before his or her 16th birthday and has
been present in the United States for at least five years
immediately preceding enactment of the bill; (2) demonstrates
good moral character; (3) is not inadmissible or deportable
under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality
Act; (4) at the time of application, has been admitted to an
institution of higher education or has earned a high school
or equivalent diploma; (5) from the age of 16 and older, has
never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or
removal; and (6) was under age 35 on the date of this bill's
enactment.
During the 108th Congress, I cosponsored a similar DREAM
Act sponsored by Senator Hatch and cosponsored by Senator
Durbin. During the 109th and 110th Congresses, I
included provisions of the DREAM Act in the comprehensive
immigration reform bill that I championed on the Senate
Floor because it is one side of an important part of the
need for reform. Another side of that need is to enhance
border security and tamp down on cartel violence along our
Southern border. I voted against cloture on a motion to
proceed to the DREAM Act in 2007 because I thought passing
the bill would undermine the pressing need to enact
Comprehensive Immigration Reform. In explaining my vote, I
said:
I believe that the DREAM Act is a good act, and I believe
that its purposes are beneficial. I think it ought to be
enacted. But I have grave reservations about seeing a part of
comprehensive immigration reform go forward because it
weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill.
Right now, we are witnessing a national disaster, a
governmental disaster, as States and counties and cities and
townships and boroughs and municipalities--every level of
government--are legislating on immigration because the
Congress of the United States is derelict in its duty to
proceed.
We passed an immigration bill out of both Houses last year
[2006]. It was not conferenced. It was a disgrace that we
couldn't get the people's business done. We were unsuccessful
in June in trying to pass an immigration bill. I think we
ought to be going back to it. I have discussed it with my
colleagues.
I had proposed a modification to the bill defeated in June,
which, much as I dislike it, would not have granted
citizenship as part of the bill, but would have removed
fugitive status only. That means someone could not be
arrested if the only violation was being in the country
illegally. That would eliminate the opportunity for
unscrupulous employers to blackmail employees with squalid
living conditions and low wages, and it would enable people
to come out of the shadows, to register within a year.
We cannot support 12 to 20 million undocumented immigrants,
but we could deport the criminal element if we could
segregate those who would be granted amnesty only.
I believe we ought to proceed with hearings in the
Judiciary Committee. We ought to set up legislation. If we
cannot act this year because of the appropriations logjam, we
will have time in late January. But as reluctant as I am to
oppose this excellent idea of the Senator from Illinois, I do
not think we ought to cherry-pick.
It would take the pressure off of comprehensive immigration
reform, which is the responsibility of the Federal
Government. We ought to act on it, and we ought to act on it
now.i
Mr. President, in the ensuing years the need for
comprehensive immigration reform has become increasingly
dire. On Friday, April 23, 2010, Arizona enacted a law that,
according to the New York Times, ``would make the failure to
carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad
power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country
illegally.'' ii The text of the law provides:
``For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official
or agency of this State or a county, city, town or other
political subdivision of this State where reasonable
suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is
unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt
shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration
status of the person.'' iii Lawmakers in other
States, including Pennsylvania and Maryland, introduced
companion measures.
On April 27, 2010, I questioned Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about the new Arizona
law. I noted that the failure of Congress to enact
comprehensive immigration reform led Arizona to legislate
``in a way which has drawn a lot of questions, a lot of
criticism.'' iv I explained that the new Arizona
provisions appear to create ``a significant risk of racial
profiling.'' v After noting that Secretary
Napolitano is the immediate-past Governor of Arizona, I noted
that ``the message sent from Arizona was that movement needs
to occur that this issue should not be allowed to languish.''
vi Secretary Napolitano replied, ``I think there
are a lot of issues. If this law goes into effect--and,
again, the effective date is not until 90 days after the
session ends. But if it goes into effect, I think there are a
lot of questions about what the real impacts on the street
will be, and they are unanswerable right now.''
vii She went on to testify: ``I think there is a
lot of cause for concern in a lot of ways on this bill and
what its impacts would be if it is to actually go into
effect. And I think it signals a frustration with the
failure of the Congress to
[[Page S4486]]
move. I will work with any Member of the Congress and have
been working with several Members of the Congress on the
actual language about what a bipartisan bill could and
should contain.'' viii When pressed about the
potential for ``racial profiling and other
unconstitutional aspects of the Arizona law,''
ix Secretary Napolitano said, ``Well, I think
the Department of Justice, Senator, is actually looking at
the law as to whether it is susceptible to challenge,
either facially or later on as applied, under several
different legal theories. And I, quite frankly, do not
know what the status of their thinking is right now.''
x
It turns out she was right. On Thursday, May 27, 2010,
Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal reported that the
Department of Justice was ``Likely to Sue Over Arizona
Immigration Law.'' xi According to the Journal,
Attorney General Holder ``met with big-city police chiefs who
are troubled by the Arizona law, which makes it a state crime
to be in the U.S. illegally and can require police to
question certain people about their immigration status.''
Mr. President, I think it is high time for the United
States Senate and House of Representatives to pass
comprehensive immigration reform to avert potentially
unconstitutional state laws in this matter of national
significance. We should take up Secretary Napolitano's offer
to help us draft a bipartisan bill that can stand bicameral
scrutiny. And we should do so now. I wrote President Obama on
April 15, 2010 to convey my willingness to press for reform
this year and I wrote to Majority Leader Reid on April 28,
2010, to convey the same message out of a strong conviction
that comprehensive immigration reform must be done now.
endnotes
i 153 Cong. Rec. S13300-02, *S13305 2007 WL
3101493 (Cong. Rec.) Oct. 24, 2007.
ii Randal C. Archibold, Arizona Enacts Stringent
Law on Immigration, New York Times, Apr. 23, 2010.
iii SB 1070, Sec. 11-1051 (available online at:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf).
iv Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing,
``Department of Homeland Security Oversight'' Tr. at 94, Apr.
27, 2010.
v Id. at 95.
vi Id.
vii Id. at 95-96.
viii Id. at 96.
ix Id. at 96-97.
x Id. at 97.
xi Nathan Koppel, DOJ Likely to Sue Over Arizona
Immigration Law, Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2010.
____
Immigration--(Senate--July 30, 2007)
Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I begin by thanking the staff
for staying a few extra minutes to enable me to come back to
the floor to make a short statement.
I have sought recognition to speak about a revised reform
bill on immigration. In the course of the past 3 years, the
Senate has spent a great deal of time on trying to reform our
immigration system: to begin to fix the broken borders; to
add more Border Patrols; to undertake some necessary fencing;
to add drones; to undertake employer verification by
utilizing identification which now can provide, with
certainty, whether an immigrant is legal or illegal; to take
care of a guest worker program to fill employment needs in
the United States; and to deal with the 12 million
undocumented immigrants.
During the 109th Congress, when I chaired the Judiciary
Committee, we reported out a bill. It came to the floor, and
after considerable debate it was passed. The U.S. House of
Representatives passed legislation directed only at border
patrol and employer verification, and for a variety of
reasons we could not reconcile the bills and enact
legislation.
This year a different procedure was undertaken: to have a
group of Senators who had been deeply involved in the issue
before craft a bill. It did not go through committee, and, as
I said earlier on the floor, I think it probably was a
mistake because the committee action of hearings and markups
and refinement works out a lot of problems. At any rate, as
we all know, after extensive debate, the bill went down. We
could not get cloture to proceed, and it was defeated.
It was defeated for a number of reasons. But I believe the
immigration issue is one of great national concern--great
importance--and ought to be revisited by the Congress and
that ought to be done at as early a time as possible.
We have a very serious problem with people coming across
our borders--a criminal element, and a potential terrorist
element. The rule of law is broken by people who come here in
violation of our laws. We have continuing problems from the
1986 legislation that employer verification is not realistic
because there is no positive way of identification.
No matter how high the borders or the value of border
patrol, it is not possible to eliminate illegal immigration
if the magnet is present. The legislation I will be putting
in as part of the Record at the conclusion of my remarks is a
draft of suggested proposals to be considered by the Senate.
There are two major changes which have been undertaken.
Much as I dislike to, I have eliminated the automatic path
to citizenship but instead deal with the fugitive status of
the undocumented immigrants, the 12 million, and eliminate
that fugitive status. Whether it is categorized as permanent
legal resident or some other category, as a matter of
nomenclature it can be worked out.
But the principal concern has not been the citizenship,
although it is a desirable factor to try to integrate the 12
million into our society. But the principal concern has been
that when an undocumented illegal immigrant sees a policeman
on the street, there is fear of apprehension and being
rounded up and deported, or the undocumented illegal is at
the mercy of an unscrupulous employer who will take advantage
of them and they cannot report to the police the treatment or
a violation of law by an employer because they are fearful of
being arrested and deported. In many places you cannot rent
an apartment or undertake other activities. So I think
eliminating the fugitive status is a major improvement.
The other significant change is to not tamper with or
change family unification but to leave it as it is now. We
had come up with, with the bill which was defeated, an
elaborate point system for immigration. It was our best
effort but, candidly, it turned out to be half-baked. It did
not go through the hearing process to hear from experts. It
did not have that kind of refinement and raised a lot of
problems. That could be revisited at a later date. I have
worked with the so- called interest groups representing
immigration interests and have had what I consider to be a
relatively good response.
I do not want to characterize it or put words in anybody's
mouth. There is a certain reluctance to make any more
concessions because concessions were made last year and the
bottom fell out. So they made an inquiry, understandably so,
that there be some realistic chance of getting the bill
passed if they are to give up a path to citizenship.
I have undertaken to talk to many of my colleagues,
Senators who opposed the bill, to get a sense from them as to
whether, with the automatic path to citizenship out, and
dealing only with the fugitive status, that there might be
some greater willingness to find an accommodation and deal
with the issues.
With respect to citizenship, even under the legislation
that was defeated, there would not be an opportunity for
citizenship until at least 8 years have passed, to take care
of the backlog, and then another 5 years to work out the 12
million undocumented immigrants. So the citizenship, even
under the bill which was defeated, was not something which
was going to be imminent.
We have seen local governments and State governments trying
to deal with the issue. Reports are more than 100 laws have
been passed and ordinances enacted which would deal with the
immigration problem. They cannot do it on a sensible basis.
Last week the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania handed down an opinion that the city of
Hazelton, notwithstanding the understandable efforts by the
mayor, program was not constitutional; that under our laws,
the answer has to come from the Congress.
We have seen a lot of unrest on the issue. The front page
of the Washington Post the day before yesterday had a report
about groups of immigrants feeling that they had been
mistreated. There was an uneasiness on all sides, uneasiness
by people who are angry about the violation of our borders,
by immigrants who think they are not being fairly treated,
and a grave concern about the availability of workers on our
farms across America, concerns of the hotel industry and
landscapers and restaurateurs about the adequacy of our labor
force. So there is no doubt that this is a very significant
issue.
Last week I circulated to my 99 colleagues a letter, and
one page summarizing the study bill--I will call it a study
bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the draft proposal
and the one-page letter circulated to all other Senators be
printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SPECTER. In conclusion, I emphasize that I am inviting
suggestions and comments for improving the bill. The one view
that I do have, very strongly, is that it is our pay grade to
deal with this issue. Only the Congress can deal with the
immigration problem, and it is a matter of tremendous
importance that we do so. We obviously cannot satisfy
everyone, but I invite analysis, criticism, and modification.
I see my distinguished colleague from Vermont, one of my
distinguished colleagues from Vermont, awaiting recognition.
Exhibit 1
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear : I believe it is possible to enact comprehensive
immigration reform in this Congress, perhaps even in this
calendar year, if we make two significant changes in the bill
we recently had on the floor.
First, a new bill should eliminate the automatic path to
citizenship for the approximately 12 million undocumented
immigrants. Instead, we should just eliminate the fugitive
status for the 12 million so that they would not be fearful
every time they see a policeman, be protected from
unscrupulous employers who threaten to turn them in if they
don't do the employer's bidding, and be free to do things
like rent apartments in cities which now preclude that. From
soundings I have taken from many senators, that should take
the teeth out of the amnesty argument, which was the
principal reason for the defeat of the last bill.
[[Page S4487]]
Second, we should not tamper with the current provisions on
family unity with the elaborate point system which was
insufficiently thought through. If that is to be ultimately
accomplished, we need hearings and a more thoughtful
approach.
Third, although not indispensable, I believe we should
provide more green cards to assist the hitech community.
The enclosed draft bill covers these three changes and also
includes the guest worker program, the increased border
security and enhanced employer verification in the last bill.
Because it will be easier to get real border security if we
deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants, I think
this proposal presents an alternate and plausible path to
achieve comprehensive immigration reform now.
I have discussed this proposal with the senators who were
part of the core negotiating group and with the relevant
interest groups and have received a generally favorable
response and, in many cases, an enthusiastic response.
Similarly, in discussing the proposed bill with the
dissenters, I have heard no strenuous adverse response so I
believe it is worthy of a repeat effort. Although the defeat
of the bill on the Senate floor was a major disappointment, I
think that we proponents of comprehensive immigration reform
have significant momentum and these changes, perhaps
supplemented by other modifications, could put us over the
top.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. In the absence of any other Senator
seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant Daily Digest clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we are coming up to a critical deadline
this week once again that touches millions of families across our
country who don't have a job, not because they don't want to work but
because they have not been able to find one in the hardest hit economy
since the Great Depression. Even though things are turning around, we
have millions of people yet to be able to find a job, to be able to
care for their families and keep a roof over their heads.
Twice this year already, the Congress has missed deadlines for
extending unemployment benefits because of Republican obstructionism,
basically telling millions of Americans: Tough.
We are now in a situation where today we will offer a temporary
extension to be able to continue unemployment benefits and help with
health care, as well as support for our doctors whom we are all
concerned about maintaining their Medicare payments, and we will ask
for an extension. I hope the answer, again, is not: Tough. That is what
I am very hopeful of.
Today there are 15.3 million Americans who have lost their jobs
through no fault of their own, and they rely on an unemployment
insurance system to pay the bills and put food on the table. We have
also heard from economists that this is an important way of keeping
dollars in the economy because when someone is out of work and they
have to be able to buy food and put gas in the car and be able to do
the other basics, it keeps money in the economy so that when someone
gets an unemployment check, they are spending it because they have to
spend it, and that is part of what is a stimulus to the economy.
People are trying to find work and trying to support their families
during tough times. They want to be working, as I said. They are
pounding the pavement every day. They are putting in applications every
day. This is not their fault. They have worked all their lives. Many of
them find themselves, having worked for companies for 20 or 30 years,
now in their fifties and they have played by the rules and they are
finding that because of what has happened in a global economy and
unfair trade rules and what has happened on a lot of different fronts,
they don't have a job. So they are asking that we continue to
understand that, understand the real world for millions of people.
We have 15.3 million people who have lost their jobs and who are
receiving assistance. That doesn't count the people who are no longer
receiving any kind of help or are working one, two, three part-time
jobs just to try to figure out how to make it, and, of course, those
jobs don't provide health insurance. As we transition to help them, we
are not yet there to be able to help those families.
When President Obama and when all of us as Democrats took office last
year, we saw at that time a loss of almost 800,000 jobs a month. We
have been laser-focused on jobs in the Recovery Act. We have been
laser-focused on doing everything we can, and continue to do that. It
is critical that we pass a small business bill to create capital for
our small businesses that have been hit.
We have another bill dealing with innovation, and the bill that will
be coming to us that extends unemployment is a major jobs bill, and we
are continuing to focus on that. With what we have already done, we
have now gone from almost 800,000 jobs a month being lost when the
President first took office, to moving to that being about zero at the
end of the year, to being about 250,000 now new jobs being created.
That is good. It is not enough. We know that. It is not nearly enough,
but at least we have turned the ship around. At least we are not
continuing to go down, down, down as we did with the last
administration for 8 years when we lost 6 million manufacturing jobs
alone.
So we are turning it around. It takes time. It takes way too much
time. I am very impatient about that because I know the best thing we
can do to help anyone who doesn't have a job in my State is to make
sure they can get a job. Folks in my State and folks in Illinois want
to work. They know how to work. They are good at working. It is not
their fault that there are six people looking for every job that is
available right now. But the reality is, because of that, people are
looking to us to understand what is going on in their lives, what they
are facing in terms of enormous pressures just to keep their heads a
little bit above water. They are asking us to extend unemployment
benefits as this economy turns around, and understand.
So we come now to another day of reckoning. We have gone through this
before. I remember last November when there was a filibuster for--I
believe it was 4 weeks--on extending unemployment benefits, and then
everybody voted for it. After creating tremendous stress in the lives
of families who were trying to figure out what was going on, after 4
weeks of filibustering, then we finally saw people voting for it.
We have seen various versions of obstruction on the floor of the
Senate. I hope today is different. I hope today people are going to say
they understand that we need to extend for 30 days if we are not able
to complete the jobs bill, depending on what happens if it comes over
from the House. I hope we will be able to do that.
If there is a continual effort to block the 1-year extension, 1.2
million Americans will lose help right now for themselves and their
families while they are looking for work, and over 300,000 people in my
great State of Michigan. As I said, these are people who are doing
everything we have asked them to do.
Let me just share some of the e-mails and letters I get, and I get
many of those.
I get many of those. Let me share this from Rick Allegan, who wrote:
I will not be able to take care of my family at all if
benefit extensions are cut. After being laid off, I have not
even been able to land a job at local restaurants or fast
food places. I am very grateful for these extensions--the
help the State is giving me is allowing my children to eat
and my family to stay afloat. Please do not take [this help]
away. I am confident I will land a job and be back to work.
Until then, I just don't want to worry about where I am going
to get funds [I need]. I am trying very hard to find work.
Mr. President, I am sure that is true.
Clinton from Battle Creek wrote:
I am a 56-year-old unemployed worker in Michigan. I lost my
job at the end of 2008, after a 38-year career in the auto
repair industry. When I got laid off, I took advantage of
Michigan's No Worker Left Behind program, and I am currently
in college working toward a degree in human services. To that
end, I work with men at the Calhoun County Jail, and I am a
mentor at the newly formed ``Mentor House'' for newly
released prisoners here in Battle Creek. When I finish my
education, I will be gainfully employed and an asset to my
community. To this end, also let me say that if I lose my
unemployment benefits, I may not be able to finish college,
and we could also lose our home because of the
[[Page S4488]]
loss of income. Needless to say, we don't want either of
those things to happen. Thank you very much for all you do,
as I am truly grateful as an American citizen to have all
that we are afforded.
That is somebody who is doing what we told him to do--go back and get
retrained. But he is only able to do that because of a temporary safety
net that will help while that is going on. The rug could be pulled out
from under him and his family.
Christopher from Three Rivers said this:
I have been unemployed for 13 months and some days.
I have never, ever been unemployed this long--not ever. And
it's astoundingly difficult to find anything--more or less
even receive a reply to an inquiry. I am registered with no
fewer than four temp offices and have been for some months,
and nothing--not a single call, even though they assure me
they are in fact looking for me.
And so I do all I can, and daily, trying not to lose hope.
But what truly appalls and galls me is Congress' attitude
that all is well and the economy is getting better, so, no,
there won't be any further extensions of unemployment
[insurance].
And let's be clear about something: I detest this. I can't
stand living on barely anything, but to then have it implied
that I somehow enjoy doing this and thus am lazy and enjoy
living on unemployment is quite offensive.
Mr. President, that is offensive to millions of Americans.
He says:
I can assure you that I do not, and I have been doing
everything in my ability to find work.
People want to work. People have worked their whole lives. It is not
their fault that we find ourselves in this situation. It is not their
fault that there was recklessness on Wall Street that led to a collapse
of financial markets, that closed down credit, that caused small
businesses not to be able to get loans to be able to keep business
going or manufacturers to be able to get the support they needed. It is
not the fault of the American people. It is not the fault of a
breadwinner who can no longer bring home the bread.
We have had a collapse on a number of levels. We are rebuilding
again. Things are turning around, as slow as it is. The unemployment
rate in Michigan is coming down. That is a good thing, but it is not
fast enough for the people whom we represent who need temporary help
until that job is available, until they are able to get that community
college degree, to be able to get that training for the new job we have
all told them they should go get. Go get retraining, we say. But how do
you put food on the table and pay for a roof over your family's head in
the meantime? We have done that through unemployment benefits that
allow people to be able to become economically independent again.
That is what we are talking about here--temporary help. That
temporary help has gone on longer than any of us would like to have it
go on. No one is more concerned about having to come to the floor and
talk about extending unemployment benefits, but the reality is, for
Americans, this is not their fault. We have to figure out how we can
continue to support them in their efforts to look for work, to be able
to go back to school so they can, in fact, continue their lives with
their families, be productive citizens, and be able to continue to
contribute to this great country.
We also know we have millions of Americans who rely on help with
health care. We said to them years ago: If you leave your job or lose
your job, you can continue your health care benefits. The problem is
that it is so expensive when you have to pay both the employer
contribution and the employee contribution, most people haven't been
able to do it.
Last year, in the Recovery Act, we did something about that. We said
we would help so that people could continue their health insurance in
COBRA. That expires as well. Just as those jobs have not been there,
until we fully see a health reform bill in place, which will take time,
as we know, we also need to continue to help with health care.
This bill that will be coming in front of us, the American Jobs and
Closing Tax Loopholes Act, also includes a very important 1-year fix--
actually, it is beyond 1 year now; it will include multiple years--to
fix what has been a drastic cut in reimbursements to doctors, a cut
that, if it were allowed to happen, would force many doctors' offices
to stop seeing Medicare families and military families.
As you know, I believe the payment formula that has been in place and
the cuts that have been scheduled for many years should be completely
eliminated and we should completely change the system, which is called
SGR. But until we can get to that point--and I hope it is very soon--we
need to make sure doctors have confidence that those drastic cuts will
not happen and that seniors and military families know cuts won't
happen and that they are going to be able to continue to see their
doctor.
It is critical right now that we work together today to make sure we
are allowing these important policies--the help for people who have
lost their jobs, whether it be health care or unemployment insurance,
the ability to continue to provide the kinds of Medicare payments so
seniors can see their doctors--it is critical that we don't let that
lapse. We will have an opportunity on the floor today to continue that
either temporarily or permanently. Obviously, I would like to see the
full jobs bill passed today and see this completed at least until the
end of this year. If that is not possible, it is not the fault of the
people who don't have jobs, so I don't know why they should be the ones
who are hurt because of it.
I am very hopeful that one way or the other we are going to let
people in this country know that as we focus on jobs--which is the best
thing we can do, and it is what everybody wants--and continue to turn
this economy around, as we continue to see jobs being created in the
private sector, we will not forget the people who have gotten caught in
this economic tsunami through no fault of their own.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURR. 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. BURR. Mr. President, I came to the floor to call up what I
thought was a very important amendment. I understand the majority is
not letting controversial amendments come up now, so I will not call it
up and put the Chair on the spot of having to object. But I do want to
take the opportunity to speak on my amendment. My hope is, if we
conclude all germane amendments, I will have the opportunity, even if
there is a limited amount of time to talk about them or debate them,
that we would at least have a vote on them, because I think not to have
a vote is to ignore the people we are representing.
I intended to call up my amendment that proposes the Secretary of the
Veterans' Administration have the authority to take any savings
realized during the bid process on major construction projects and use
it to fund other authorized construction projects within the VA; in
other words, take care of providing the facilities our veterans need
for the delivery of health care they have so richly deserved.
Because of a bad economy, the VA has actually been able to strike
unbelievable deals with the projects they had before them. From that,
the best estimate I have is that the VA has saved $103 million on 12
projects. Let me say that again. The VA has saved $103 million on 12
projects.
As my colleagues all know, in section 901 of this bill, it proposes
taking $67 million from the construction projects for medical
facilities and maintenance of VA facilities and to dump that $67
million into a thing we call the Filipino Equity Fund.
Let me say that again, because I think most people listening probably
do not believe what I said. We are going to take $67 million out of the
VA construction and maintenance fund that we were able to save because
of good work on contracting on 12 projects, and we are going to shift
$67 million over to the Filipino Equity Fund.
On the face you would say, well, if it is going to Filipino Equity
Fund, it is not going to U.S. veterans. You are right. It is not going
to U.S. veterans.
Money appropriated by this Congress for the construction and the
maintenance of medical facilities, hospitals,
[[Page S4489]]
outpatient clinics, maintenance of those facilities, we are going to
shift over to the Filipino Equity Fund. I will talk more a little bit
later about the Filipino Equity Fund.
First and foremost, the money saved in the bid process was
appropriated to fund major construction projects within the Department
of Veterans Affairs. We are talking about hospital construction,
renovation, cemetery construction, and other capital improvements. Let
me assure you the President knows this. The needs are vast.
Let me quote from last year's Senate MILCON Appropriations report:
The committee remains concerned that the Department has a
significant problem with unfunded liability on its existing
major construction projects. In fiscal year 2010 [this one]
the Department will have 21 partially funded projects with a
cumulative future cost of nearly $4.5 billion.
Let me say that again: In this report from this Congress about the
2010 budget, we criticized the Veterans' Administration because they
had 21 partially funded projects with a cumulative future cost of $4.5
billion. All of a sudden, this year, because of a down economy and our
ability to negotiate better deals, we have a surplus in the account
where we have saved $103 million. And what are we going to do? We are
going to shift it all over to the Filipino Equity Fund, not put it
toward $4.5 billion worth of identified shortfalls in existing projects
that have already been started.
We are not talking about the ones on the list that might go to the
Presiding Officer's State or to my State of North Carolina, where I
have got the highest percentage of veteran retirees as a percentage of
anywhere in the country. Let me assure you, we have got needs today
there. If you want to do something with that $103 million, I can put
outpatient clinics in North Carolina where our veterans will receive
real health care that they deserve and, more importantly, they earned
because of their service to the country. But, no, $67 million of it is
going outside of the Veterans' Administration and is going to the
Filipino Equity Fund.
Let me also quote from a prominent veterans organization, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose witness testified at the committee's
February budget hearing.
The challenge for VA is there are still numerous projects
that need to be carried out, and the current backlog of
partially funded projects is too large. This means that the
VA is going to continue to require significant appropriations
for the major and minor construction accounts.
That is one of the veterans service organizations, the organization
that represents veterans all over this country, warning us: You know
what. There are so many projects out there, there is not enough funding
to go around. Why are we doing this?
Second, given the acknowledged need I have described, it makes no
sense to remove the funds from an account expressly dedicated to
meeting the needs of that account. There is no Member of the Senate who
can tell me that VA construction does not need this $103 million. But
we are going to shift it. We are going to do that because we can.
Congress provides taxpayer dollars for major construction projects.
These dollars should remain for that purpose. Why? Because the need
exists. If not, taxpayers are going to have to pay for it with
additional taxpayer money.
Third, we have a massive deficit. I am not sure many Members of the
Senate will acknowledge it. We have a massive deficit, and hard choices
have to be made with limited resources. The choice here is what do you
do with $67 million. This $67 million has been identified as savings
within the VA construction budget. What do you do with it?
Well, the amendment I would have offered--and, again, I wish I could
call it up so my colleagues could debate it with me and vote on it, but
it is contentious. I understand. I never thought it would be
contentious to try to protect what our veterans are due. I never
thought it would be contentious that if you found somebody taking money
and putting it where the Senate did not authorize it to be that that
was contentious. I thought that is why we were here. I thought that is
called oversight.
Well, the amendment I would have offered proposes that we keep the
money to meet the needs Congress intended it for: to build hospitals,
for cemetery construction, for major renovation of VA facilities.
I have also filed an amendment proposing to fund the provisions of
the family caregiver law the President just signed into law. I am not
going to call it up. But my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows; he
sits on the VA Committee with me.
The President signed into law a great bill. It is to allow a family
member of an injured servicemember to be their advocate, those 1,500-
plus severely injured Americans with a traumatic brain injury who need
an advocate fighting for their rehabilitation, because, quite simply,
the system does not fight for them.
They could not leave their job and lose their salary because they
lost their health care. And the President saw the wisdom in a bill that
we passed out of the Veterans Affairs Committee. It is going to be
costly, about $4 billion over 10 years, to give a financial stipend to
that family member, a financial stipend that is no different than we
would have paid some stranger off the street to come in and take care
of that servicemember.
Now we are going to give the same amount of money to that spouse or
that father or that mother. And, oh, by the way, we also provide them
access to TRICARE health care coverage that we provide our soldiers and
their families.
That is about $4.2 trillion. If you want to use $67 million for
something that Congress didn't appropriate it for, which is
construction, then let's use the $67 million to offset the funding of
the caregiver program, something that is acknowledged that we need and,
more importantly, we understand exactly what the impact is on our
service personnel.
The question my amendment presents is, Is providing additional
resources for veterans so that they have modern medical facilities to
receive care a higher priority than ensuring that Filipino veterans get
a pension benefit? It is as simple as that. There is no way one can
spin this any differently. We are either going to give Filipinos a
pension benefit or we are going to supply our veterans with the health
care infrastructure they need and, more importantly, deserve.
Irrespective of where we come down on the Philippine issue--and I
will provide my views on that momentarily--the ultimate issue is one of
making tough decisions, tough choices. I personally don't think this is
one of those. I respect my colleagues who believe otherwise.
Two years ago, I took this floor to argue against establishing this
special pension for Filipino veterans who fought under U.S. command
during World War II. My argument was based on several factors. First, I
didn't believe it was the right priority given the other needs that
existed in our veterans community. Nothing has changed. There is a
greater need in our veterans community today than there was 2 years ago
when I argued the need on behalf of our veterans versus Filipino
veterans.
Second, I don't think it is appropriate to pay a benefit that is not
adjusted for the different standards of living that exist between the
Philippines and the United States. Example: Pensions in the United
States for veterans achieve an income of 10 percent above the poverty
level. The special pension we are talking about during this debate--and
the debate 2 years ago--got Filipino veterans to 1,400 percent above
Filipino poverty: U.S. veterans, 10 percent above poverty; Filipino
veterans, 1,400 percent above the poverty line. We should have called
this the Filipino millionaires club.
Finally, I don't think these benefits were ever promised in the first
place. I will not get into the exhaustive debate the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee and I had 2 years ago. I don't remember a time
where anybody told me anything I said was not factual or suggested it
was wrong. I made a tremendous case that in the 1930s, these veterans
were organized to fight for the soon-to-be-independent Philippine
State. They were called under U.S. command in defense of their own
homeland.
Let me say that again. They were called under our command to defend
their own homeland. The view of the Congress immediately following the
war was that care of these veterans was
[[Page S4490]]
a shared responsibility. The United States provided a limited array of
benefits for Filipino veterans, including disability pay for service
injuries, new hospitals, which we later donated to the Philippines, and
medical supply donations.
That was the Congress immediately following the war, the decision
this body made when this was a fresh remembrance. It was never expected
that the United States would provide the same benefits to Filipino
veterans as we do for U.S. veterans.
Here is a quote from 1946 made by then-Senate Appropriations
Committee chairman Carl Hayden:
[N]o one could be found who would assert that it was ever
the clear intention of Congress that such benefits as are
granted under . . . the GI bill of rights--should be extended
to the soldiers of the Philippine Army. There is nothing in
the text of any laws enacted by Congress for the benefit of
veterans to indicate such intent.
Again, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1946,
commenting on whether we were committed, whether we had promised,
whether we had insinuated.
The shared responsibility for Filipino veterans was a view that held
across Republican and Democratic administrations for six decades.
Proposed pension benefits for Filipino veterans was opposed by every
administration in Congress since 1946 up until 2008 when all of a
sudden we created the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.
Here are some facts surrounding the creation of the fund and why I am
concerned with what we are doing today, especially on a bill that is
meant to provide relief from recent disasters in the United States and
to fund our troops. The Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund was
created to make payments to Filipino veterans of World War II in
increments of $9,000 or $15,000, depending upon citizenship. This body
authorized the creation of the fund and appropriated $198 million to
fund it. The fund was later officially created, and the $198 million
was officially authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act, the stimulus package.
Remember the big bill we passed to put Americans back to work? Well,
$198 million went to create the Filipino equity fund. I wonder if it
created any jobs over there.
By law, Filipino veterans were given 1 year in which to file claims
for benefits against the fund. That 1-year period ended February 16,
2010. February, March, April, May--we are a little over 3 months past
the deadline for any Filipino veteran who wanted to file a claim to
file the claim. The law also required--and this is important--that the
Veterans' Administration submit detailed information within the
President's budget submission on the operation of the compensation
fund, the number of applicants, the number of eligible persons
receiving benefits, and the amount of funds paid. I am not sure anybody
here would be shocked to learn that we got the President's submission,
but there wasn't a VA report in it.
As a matter of fact, in December, when, as ranking member, my staff
inquired with the VA what the balance of the Philippine equity fund
was, we were well under $198 million having been allocated. That was
the end of December. We only had 60 days left for people to actually
process their applications before the cutoff date. I find it
unbelievable that we would spend almost as much in the last 60 days as
we spent in the first 10 months, as people applied for this benefit.
There was no detailed information provided in the President's budget.
All that was there was an estimate that the administration expected
$188 million to be expended on submitted claims. I turn to my colleague
from Maine, but I think the President's budget came in in February or
early March, after the deadline. The President's budget said they are
going to use $188 million, well short of the $198 million Congress had
already appropriated to the Philippine equity fund. At no point in the
intervening months since the President submitted his budget were we
notified of a shortfall in the fund.
We see the pattern. The pattern is the White House said there was
enough money. We had a surplus in there. The Secretary of the VA never
told the ranking member, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, the White House, or my staff that they were short money.
We will take up at another time with the Secretary of the VA his
statutory obligation to submit a report to the Congress, but now we are
here.
On May 7, Secretary Shinseki sent a letter to the chairman and
ranking member of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
informing them, but not officially requesting, of a $67 million
shortfall. Where did this come from? This is like ``Star Trek.'' Just
out of the blue, it appears, 3\1/2\ months after the deadline for
filing. Well, if you look at the amount of disability claim backlogs at
the VA, you understand they don't process things very quickly, even for
our veterans. But they have processed the Filipinos' a lot faster than
they have ours and, more importantly, they have reached out in a
supplemental spending bill. It is an emergency. A supplemental spending
bill is for emergencies. How does this fit as an emergency? Tell me
where this should not be offset? Why should the American taxpayer be
required to go out and borrow this money?
I apologize. It is paid for. We are stealing it from the VA. We
probably borrowed it to give it to the VA, but now we are stealing it
from the VA and giving it to the Philippine equity fund.
I find it interesting that we are rushing to meet this shortfall
without understanding how exactly we went from being under budget to
being grossly over budget. I say ``grossly.'' We allocated $198
million. The White House projected in February they were going to use
$188 million. All of a sudden, we have to take another third in an
emergency capacity to make sure they can meet the needs.
One other point I wish to make: There is clear language authorizing
appropriations for the Philippine equity fund. Make no mistake. There
is authorization language, clear authorization language. I quote from
the Recovery Act now, the stimulus package, in reference to the funding
for the Philippine equity fund:
It is authorized to be appropriated to the compensation
fund $198 million to remain available until expended to make
payments under this section.
So even in the underlying bill language, if the underlying bill
language is enacted, the VA has no legal obligation to spend it. They
have no legal authority to spend it--let me put it that way--because
the additional money hasn't been authorized. We authorized $198
million. For the VA to spend more, quite frankly, they do not have the
authority, as I read the law, and as I read the language quoted in the
stimulus bill, the Recovery Act. This kind of oversight is what happens
when matters are rushed through without appropriate vetting.
This week our Nation's debt went above $13 trillion. Spending is out
of control, and there is no end in sight. As a nation, over the next 10
years--if we did not borrow another penny--we owe $5.4 trillion in
interest payments to service the money we have borrowed. If we compare
that to the entire sovereign debt of the European Union, which is $12.7
trillion, we owe almost 50 percent of the entire sovereign debt of the
European Union in interest payments over the next 10 years--not in
reducing debt, servicing debt.
Although another $67 million to add to the Filipino fund might seem
like a drop in the bucket, I do not think it does to people in North
Carolina: the soldiers at Fort Bragg, the marines at Camp Lejeune, the
airmen at Seymour Johnson, the aviators at Cherry Point, the
servicemembers who ship all the ammunition the U.S. military uses out
of Sunny Point, the thousands of family members who rely on the health
care and the benefits.
We are experiencing an unemployment rate in North Carolina of 10.8
percent. Nationally, we are at about 9.9 percent. At a time when the
typical family in North Carolina is struggling to meet the obligations
at the end of the month--meaning they buy what they need and not what
they want--what does the Congress do? The Congress says the hell with
our veterans. Let's take money we have designated and put over here for
construction and to build cemeteries and to do maintenance for our
veterans--let's take $67 million of it and fund this pot of money that
even the Secretary has not justified why they need it.
[[Page S4491]]
In a tough fiscal climate, tough choices must be made. I say to the
President, I say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we
have been more than generous to the Philippines, to the Philippine
veterans. But, Mr. Chairman, our needs must be met first--the needs of
our veterans, the needs of our economy, the needs of the American
people, the protection of the fiscal integrity of this country.
America wakes up every day expecting us to change. Every day they
wake up thinking: Maybe Congress will recognize the difficult financial
situation we are in--only to see us, in a week like this, where we are
desperately trying to borrow another $300 billion, and we claim it is
an emergency.
This is not an emergency. If we owe it, it can wait. If we owe it, we
should pay for it; we should not borrow it. We should not steal it from
the VA. We should not steal it from our children and our grandchildren.
We should not steal it from the veterans. If we owe it, let's pay for
it.
I had wished to call up this amendment. I hope before we end the
debate on this supplemental spending bill--but I do not know--I will
put it this way: We will, before we end this supplemental spending
bill, have an opportunity to vote on this because I will object to
leaving before we will. I will not hold the majority or the minority
Members to the floor to hear me rant and rave again, I promise the
chairman that. I have said my piece. But I hope they will show me the
dignity of voting on it. I hope they prove to America this body still
has rules and that we follow those rules.
It is a germane amendment. It gets to the heart of one specific piece
of it. Two people can disagree on whether it is an emergency. Two
people can disagree on whether it is a priority. But I think the one
thing we can all agree on is we can never, ever pay our veterans
enough. There is no amount of money, there is no service, there is no
benefit we can provide that satisfactorily takes the veterans of this
country and thanks them appropriately. We are in this institution
because of them, and when we do this future generations question why.
Today, I hope my colleagues question why, and when given an
opportunity, vote in support of my amendment and strike this from the
bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, it was not my intention to rise, but
after listening to the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina, I
felt it obligatory that I say something to clarify the record.
I think it is well that we review a bit of the history of World War
II. On July 26, 1941, the President of the United States, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt, invited the Filipinos, issued a military order, and
said: Join our forces in the Far East. If you do, at the end of the war
you will be entitled to, well, apply for citizenship and receive all
the benefits of a veteran of the United States. That was a promise made
by the President of the United States in March of 1942.
After going through the horror of Bataan and Corregidor, the Congress
of the United States passed a law doing exactly that: authorizing
Filipinos who wished to be naturalized to do so; and upon
naturalization, a receipt of citizenship, they were entitled to all the
benefits.
Madam President, 470,000 volunteered, and many died as we know. Most
of the men who marched in the Bataan Death March were not Americans;
they were Filipinos. But then, when the war ended, we did send one
member of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to Manila to take
applications for citizenship. Before he settled down, he was recalled
back to Washington. The Congress of the United States, in March of
1946, repealed that law, denying the Filipinos and reneging on the
promise we made.
When I took the oath as a soldier in World War II, after the oath,
the company commander told me there are three words that are precious:
``duty,'' ``honor,'' and ``country.'' Duty to your country, never
dishonor the country. Show your love for your country.
Well, in this case, it should be apparent to all of us what we did
was not right. We made a promise. We were honor bound to those men who
served and got wounded. The emergency is very simple: they are dying by
the dozens each day. They are old men. Their average age is 87. They do
not have too many months left in their lives. That is why it is in this
supplemental bill. If we wait another year, who knows how many will be
left?
I just wanted the record to be clear this is a matter of honor. We
should uphold our promises. We are complaining to other countries when
they violate a little portion of a treaty. This was a promise made by
Congress and the President of the United States, and we reneged soon
after the war. It is so obvious. Would we have done that to other
countries?
Madam President, I am glad it is not coming up for a vote because I
think it would be a sad day if we voted it down.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Amendment No. 4253
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I left an important markup of the
Senate Armed Services Committee because it was my understanding the
Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, wished to debate an amendment I
have pending before this body and she wanted to do so at either 3:30 or
3:45. It is now almost a quarter after 4, and I am told the schedule of
the Senator from California has changed. I am very eager, having spent
considerable time waiting for her on the Senate floor, to return to the
markup. So I am going to give my comments now and try to anticipate the
arguments my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, will be making
in opposition to the amendment I have offered. It is a little difficult
to do it that way, but having waited for some time now, I do need to
return to the committee's markup.
My bipartisan amendment is a common sense approach to protecting both
jobs and children's health, and it has to do with the new regulation
the EPA has put into effect as of April 22 that requires mandatory
training for anyone who is involved in disturbing or removing lead-
based paint.
Let me say I support the intention of this rule. In fact, along with
my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, I have done a great deal
of work to try to reduce the exposure of our children to lead-based
paint. He and I held joint hearings in Rhode Island and Maine because
both of our States have housing stocks that are older than the national
average and, thus, have considerable lead-based paints. So I understand
how important this issue is, and I support the rule.
Unfortunately, the EPA has completely botched the implementation of
this rule because of its inexcusably poor planning, and it did not
ensure there was an adequate number of trainers to provide the required
classes to ensure that contractors understand the requirements of the
new rule. That is why it is probably not surprising that there is a
long list of cosponsors of my amendment. They include Senators
Alexander, Inhofe, Bond, Voinovich, Snowe, Begich, Gregg, Murkowski,
Coburn, Thune, Corker, Brown of Massachusetts, Hutchison, Enzi and
Barrasso, and I appreciate them joining me as cosponsors of this
amendment.
What my amendment would do is prohibit the EPA from using funds in
this bill to levy fines against contractors under its new lead paint
rule through September 30.
Based on what I have seen in Maine, I believe the lion's share of
contractors are awaiting EPA's training classes. Unfortunately, while
they wait for EPA to deliver this training, they are at risk of being
fined up to $37,500 per day, per violation. While I support EPA's rule
because we must continue our efforts to safely rid toxic, lead-based
paint from our homes, it is simply not fair to put these contractors at
risk of these enormous fines when it is EPA's fault that these
contractors have not been able to get the training that is required
under the new rule.
The fact is there are not enough trainers in place to certify the
contractors. Let me give my colleagues an example. In three States--
Louisiana, South Dakota, and Wyoming--there are no trainers available.
How is that fair? In my State, as of last week, there were only three
EPA trainers for the entire State to certify contractors, and as a
result just a little more than 10 percent of the State's contractors
have been certified.
[[Page S4492]]
Well, what does that mean? That means individuals will be affected,
not just big contractors. It is your neighborhood painters; plumbers
are affected; window replacement and door replacement specialists. It
affects a wide variety of individuals involved in home renovations.
They are all affected. They can't get the courses. So that means they
can't do these jobs. Here is the ironic result. The ironic and tragic
result is that lead-based paint remains in these homes. It can't be
removed because the contractors aren't certified to remove it. So that
is the irony--the delay of the removal of lead-based paint.
In a State such as Tennessee that has just undergone enormous
flooding and is going to require extensive renovation and
reconstruction, it is going to bring a lot of that work to a halt
because for all of Tennessee there are only three EPA-certified
trainers. In a State such as Alaska--think how vast Alaska is--there
are only three certified trainers as well. In Hawaii, there are two. In
Iowa, there is only one for the whole State. In the Presiding Officer's
State of New Hampshire, there are only three--again, not nearly enough.
The rule carries a big penalty for contractors who do not get
trained. If contractors who perform work in homes built before 1978 are
not EPA certified, they face fines of up to $37,500 per violation, per
day. Well, in your State and my State, that is more than many of these
painters make in a year--in a year. And how unfair it is that it is the
EPA's fault that in many cases these contractors are not certified.
They are not certified because they simply cannot get the courses.
Let me give my colleagues another example of the EPA's total
mishandling of the planning for this rule. The EPA estimated that it
only needed to train 1,400 people in my State--1,400 people. In fact,
there are more than 20,000 individuals in the State of Maine who
require training. The EPA assumes they are part of large firms and that
only one person at each firm needs to be certified. That is just not
how it works. In my State--indeed, I bet in most rural States--
contractors are often one or two people in a shop. They aren't these
big firms. The person who did work on my home replacing the windows
just a couple of years ago--and I am glad he did it then before this
new rule went into effect--works either alone or with one or two other
people to assist him. That is very typical.
There is an assumption by the EPA that contractors specialize, that
they only do renovations in old homes or they do new home construction.
That isn't true at all, particularly not in this economic environment
where the housing industry has been so hurt and depressed. The
contractors in my State are hustling to do whatever they can in order
to get work and to put food on their table. They work in mixed
communities with both older and newer homes. It is simply not fair to
require them to give up working in older homes, particularly in a State
such as mine which has some of the oldest housing in the Nation.
Here is another assertion by the EPA. The EPA asserts that they did
plenty of outreach and that contractors should have known they needed
to get training before April 22. Clearly, the EPA did not adequately
target its outreach campaign. Writing to Home Depot doesn't do it. That
is not sufficient outreach. In fact, the classes were all offered in
the southern part of my State, very far from people in Aroostook County
in northern Maine, for example, where it could be a 5 or 6-hour drive
in order to get the necessary training. When we begged the EPA for more
trainers and more help, it took them 7 weeks to even respond with some
ideas for getting more trainers in Maine, and even then their proposal
showed a complete lack of understanding of the geography of the State
and the number of people who would need to be trained.
It also was frustrating because they offered some very expensive
classes. EPA, for example, offered a class for $200 in Waterville for
people living in Aroostook County. That is almost 5 hours away. So not
only were they going to be required to pay $200 for the course, but
also they would miss 2 days of work traveling back and forth. That is
inexcusable, and that is the kind of insensitivity out of Washington
that makes people so alienated from government right now. It is exactly
why people are so frustrated.
The EPA will point out the dangers of lead poisoning, and I could not
agree more that lead poisoning is a terrible problem and that we have
to do all we can to protect our children. But poor implementation of
this rule serves no one well, and in fact, as I pointed out, it means
lead paint is going to remain in homes that otherwise would have been
remediated or mitigated.
This rule is very strict. If you disturb just 6 square feet of paint,
then you have to comply with the new rule. So it doesn't just apply to
a large contractor doing an extensive renovation; it is going to apply
if you are a carpenter replacing one window in a home or if you are a
plumber who is helping to put in a new bathroom where there is lead
paint or if you are a painter who is painting a new room or an old room
in a house. So it has very wide application.
How the EPA so misjudged the number of people who would require
training is beyond me. This is so frustrating because it did not need
to happen this way and cause such hardship for our small business men
and women who are struggling if they are in the construction business
right now.
That is why my amendment--a bipartisan amendment with considerable
support--has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent
Business, our Nation's largest small business advocacy organization. In
fact, the NFIB will consider a vote in favor of my amendment as an NFIB
key vote for this Congress. I want to make sure my colleagues recognize
that.
I wish to read a portion of the letter from NFIB. Again, as NFIB
points out:
The new EPA lead rule applies to virtually any industry
affecting home renovation including: Painters, plumbers,
window and door installers, carpenters, electricians, and
similar specialists . . . NFIB appreciates the intent of the
law . . . However, we continue to be concerned that the tight
enforcement deadline unfairly punishes contractors who have
not been able to become accredited through no fault of their
own.
That is the point. In my State, there are literally hundreds of
contractors who are on waiting lists to get convenient classes, and
some of them have been on these class waiting lists for as long as 2
months. So this is a real problem, and the high penalty for
noncompliance is simply unfair.
I would point out that this is the peak construction season,
particularly in Northern States such as ours, I say to the Presiding
Officer. We can't bring everything to a grinding halt because the EPA
did such poor planning in rolling out this new rule.
I also wish to point out that the amendment has been endorsed by the
Retail Lumber Dealers Association and by the Window and Door
Manufacturers Association. It is endorsed by the National Home Builders
Association. It is endorsed by a number of groups representing small
businesses involved in the renovation of homes.
Again--because I can just imagine what is going to come about later
when my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, comes to the floor--
this is not about repealing this rule. This is about giving more time
for the training, the mandatory classes to take place before the EPA
steps in and wallops these small businesses, these self-employed
painters and carpenters and window installers and plumbers, with huge
fines that could put them out of business simply because they have not
been able to get the mandatory training due to the EPA's poor
implementation of this new rule.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is a modest,
commonsense solution to a problem created here in Washington by
officials who are simply out of touch with what is going on in home
renovation businesses. I hope my colleagues will support it. All it is
doing is giving us a few more months to get people trained. I think
that it is reasonable. I ask for my colleagues' support.
Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant Daily Digest editor proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S4493]]
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, later we will be taking up an amendment
I filed to the supplemental appropriations bill--amendment No. 4191--
and at that time, with an agreement that is reached by all sides, I
will not be asking for a vote on that amendment and will be withdrawing
it. I wanted to give the reasons why I will be doing so.
I was pleased that President Obama announced today that he would put
on hold the lease-sale 220 site that is off the coast of Virginia for
offshore drilling. Let me take us back to March, when President Obama
made the announcement that certain parts of our coast--previously off
limits for offshore drilling--would now be allowed to go forward with
drilling. At that time, Senator Mikulski and I sent a letter, issued a
statement, making it clear we would resist any efforts to drill off of
the Virginia coast 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. We
thought the risk of these drillings were too great with the amount of
oil that may have been there.
The President's announcement today takes that issue off the table, at
least temporarily. The amendment I offered to the supplemental
appropriations bill which, of course, would have been in effect during
the use of the funds in the supplemental appropriations, would have
prevented any of those funds from being used for drilling off the
Atlantic or the straits of Florida. The President's announcement has
now taken care of my immediate concern that there could have been an
effort to move forward on drilling off of the Virginia coast.
I want to go over the pluses and minuses of this, because I think it
is an interesting dynamic here as to the benefits that could have been
involved in drilling off of the Atlantic coast.
As I said before, the site that was selected is about 50 miles from
the mouth of the Chesapeake, about 60 miles from Assateague Island. If
there had been a spill, the prevailing winds, over 70 percent of the
time, come into the coast or along the coast. That means if we had a
spill, that spill would have had dramatic impact on the Chesapeake Bay,
on Assateague Island, on the beaches of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey,
Virginia, and probably the east coast of the United States, and could
have caused irreparable harm.
The potential oil that is in site 220 matches about 1 week of our
Nation's needs. So the risk-benefit here clearly dictates that we not
drill along the mid-Atlantic. And I would like to add one additional
factor, and that is there has been concern expressed by the Department
of Defense as to moving forward with drilling off the shores of
Virginia, because the Navy does operations within this area, and it
would have been an encroachment on the ability of the Department of
Defense to move forward with its needs. In a time of war, we certainly
don't want to jeopardize the Defense needs.
So for all those reasons, the Senators from this region--Senator
Mikulski, myself, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Menendez--have been
arguing very strenuously against moving forward, and that is the reason
why I filed amendment No. 4191. Fortunately, the President has removed
the immediate concern.
Of course, since his March announcement, we have seen the BP Oil
episode in the Gulf of Mexico--this horrific event. By the way, the
largest spill we had in the United States--the Exxon Valdez accidental
spill--was 10.8 million gallons. We now believe the spill in the Gulf
of Mexico currently is approaching 40 million gallons. So we are
talking about perhaps as much as three to four times the scope of what
happened with the Exxon Valdez.
We know the original estimates were wrong. We don't know the exact
estimates. Some say it is even larger than that. But we do know that we
have now exceeded the Exxon Valdez as far as the amount of oil that has
gone into the Gulf of Mexico and, of course, is traveling. It is
traveling, as Senator Nelson points out frequently, along the Loop
Current that brings it around the Keys up the east coast of the United
States. So this is having a catastrophic environmental impact.
As I have said previously on the floor, the permits for the BP Oil
site never should have been granted. The exploration plans spelled out
very clearly that there was little risk of a spill, and that if they
had a spill, it would not affect our coast because they had proven
technology to prevent that from happening. Well, they didn't have
proven technology. The blowout preventers had failed on numerous
occasions previously, and we know that they misrepresented the facts.
The point I am bringing up is that there is a need for significant
change in our regulatory system as it relates to going forward with
drilling, and the President is recognizing that today. He announced a
moratorium on deep water and he also announced a modification on what
is happening in the Arctic. I think all that is the right step moving
forward. It is the first step forward, to acknowledge we have a
problem. But I want to point out that the areas already available for
exploration represent over 70 percent of our known reserves--I think
over 80 percent on oil. So we are talking about a very little amount in
new areas. And we only have less than 3 percent of the world's
reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil.
As the President said today, what happened in the Gulf of Mexico
should be a real awakening call to our Nation to go forward with an
energy policy to make us secure. We cannot drill our way out of this
problem. We have to develop renewable and alternative energy sources.
We need to be serious about conservation, and we need to look at ways
that we can be energy secure and improve our economic outlook by
creating jobs and also be friendly toward our environment.
For all those reasons, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to move
forward with new explorations along the Atlantic coast.
Although I applaud the President's announcement today--it is a step
in the right direction--what we need to do is take this site, lease
sale 220, off the table permanently and take drilling in the Atlantic
permanently off the table. I assure my colleagues I will be looking for
a way in which we can speak to this to provide the legislative
authority so drilling will not take place off the Atlantic coast. I
know Senator Feinstein is also working on amendments to make sure we do
not have any new permits issued until we have a regulatory system in
place that we all have confidence is independent and will protect the
environment and safety of the American people.
The bottom line is that the American people have a right to expect we
are going to do what is right for this country, that we are on their
side and we are not just going to listen to what the oil industry
wants. We are going to make sure we protect our environment and make
sure we have an energy policy that makes sense for America.
I think the President took an important step forward today in his
announcements concerning taking this lease site, at least for the
moment, off the table so we are not threatened by exploration off the
Virginia coast. That was the intent of my amendment. I am very pleased
he did that. But I hope this will lead this body to pass legislation to
permanently protect the Atlantic coast because, frankly, oil spilled
anywhere on the Atlantic coast will affect the entire coast.
We need to be mindful that we all are in this together. Let's work on
responsible policies for regulation to make sure our regulators are
controlling the drilling that is taking place in the proper manner, and
let's work together on an energy policy that makes sense for this
Nation, that will make us energy secure and provide for America's
future.
With that in mind, when the appropriate time comes to consider
amendment No. 4191, I want my colleagues to know why I will not be
seeking action on that amendment. I believe the President's actions
will protect those of us on the east coast of the United States during
this immediate time, during 2010, so we will not have any drilling
done. I am satisfied that we have been able to protect our communities
from drilling. But I urge us to get together to make sure that is
permanent and that it is not changed when perhaps people's recollection
of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico might not be quite as fresh as
it is today, as we see the consequences of this environmental disaster.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask to be recognized for 2 minutes.
[[Page S4494]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4221 Withdrawn
Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, in 1 minute I am going to ask for
unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 4221, which is currently
pending on the legislation before us. After discussions with the staff,
it is my understanding that the appropriations included in FEMA in this
emergency legislation will, in fact, be available to those States that
have been approved for funds that did not get them in the last budget
because funds ran out. If that is the case, the State of Georgia would,
as my intent was, be recognized to be a beneficiary of that. Therefore,
I ask unanimous consent that the Isakson amendment, No. 4221, be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ISAKSON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Menendez amendment to the Reid amendment
is the pending question.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, would it be in order for me to speak
against the Collins amendment, No. 4253, at this time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it would.
Amendment No. 4253
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I hope we are going to defeat the
Collins amendment, No. 4253. Let me explain what the amendment does. I
want to describe why it is wrong and why it should be defeated.
The purpose of the Collins amendment is to prohibit the EPA, the
Environmental Protection Agency, from ensuring compliance with Federal
safeguards to protect pregnant women, infants, and children from lead
poisoning related to repair and renovation work involving lead-based
paint. I think everyone agrees--I don't think there is any dissent--
that lead is very dangerous and lead poisons children. We know it is
imperative to remove the lead from the child's environment in order to
make sure they do not get brain damage.
This amendment is designed to stop the EPA from enforcing that very
important safeguard of removing this lead even if businesses were
criminally negligent, even if businesses were willfully breaking the
law's safeguards. If children were lead-poisoned and had permanent
brain damage as a result of inadequate care being taken to protect the
public health, EPA still couldn't enforce this law and get rid of the
lead. Even if a child died as a result of severe lead poisoning, this
amendment says EPA cannot enforce the law here.
The reason that is given by Senator Collins for her amendment to
prohibit EPA from enforcing this law to protect our kids from lead is
that there are not enough trainers available at EPA to train businesses
so they are properly trained to do this work. Later on in this
statement, I will show why that is false. But let me say that we ought
to know what we are getting into here if we start doing things like
this. Whose side are we on, anyway--the side of our families or the
side of some businesses that do not want to do what has to be done and
are using any excuse to get out of doing what needs to be done, which
is to get rid of the lead.
On April 22, 2008, EPA issued a rule requiring the use of lead-safe
practices to prevent lead poisoning. The rule requires one contractor
in a renovation or repair job site to be certified in lead safe job
practices. This one contractor can oversee or conduct the work. The
rule covers projects at childcare facilities, schools, and homes that
were built before 1978, and any facility that contains lead-based
paint.
The Bush administration's EPA promulgated this rule after then-
Senator Obama worked to get the Agency to conduct the rulemaking. When
the Agency started the rulemaking in 2006, the EPA was a decade behind
the schedule Congress had set out. Imagine this: It took an extra 10
years to get this regulation in place, and Senator Collins wants to
stop the enforcement. This is a bad amendment.
Let me tell you about the public health threats EPA's rule is
designed to protect. According to the CDC, the Centers for Disease
Control, lead is a dangerous toxin that can harm almost every organ and
system in the body, and there is no known safe level of lead in
children's blood. About 250,000 U.S. children age 1 to 5 have blood
lead levels greater than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood,
the level on which CDC recommends public health intervention. When
children have that much lead in their bodies, they may have to undergo
painful treatments to quickly reduce their blood lead levels. According
to the EPA, lead can damage the nervous system, including the brain,
which can harm mental development, and it can cause permanent injury to
hearing and visual abilities.
Pregnant women, infants, and children are especially at risk from
exposure to lead. Exposure before and during pregnancy can harm
prenatal development and cause miscarriages. Large exposure to lead can
cause blindness, brain damage, convulsions, and even death. The long-
term effects of lead exposure in children include higher school failure
rates and reduction in lifetime earnings due to permanent loss of
intelligence and other impacts.
Let me tell you, Madam President, this is a proven scientific fact.
Exposure to lead in children--in all of us is a real problem but
especially in children. If we are not on the side of the children in
this Senate, I don't know whose side we are on.
This is a very unwise amendment. According to the EPA, 40 percent of
homes have some lead-based paint, and annual renovation, repair, and
painting projects may impact 1.4 million children under the age of 6.
Lead-based paint repair and renovation activities can significantly
increase the risk of elevated blood lead in our children. An EPA study
found that children living in residences during renovation and
remodeling activities were 30 percent more likely to have elevated
blood lead levels than children who lived elsewhere.
States from coast to coast recognize the threat lead poses to infants
and children, and they recognize that trained individuals should do
lead paint repair and renovation work.
In Maine, the State government recognizes that more than 60 percent
of Maine homes may contain lead paint. Home renovations caused over
half the childhood lead poisonings in Maine.
This is a statement from the Maine government:
It is very important that home repairs in an area with lead
paint be done safely and correctly. Improper removal of lead
paint can poison you and your children.
This is from the State of Maine. They go on to say:
Every year, hundreds of children in Maine are found to have
elevated blood levels. Most children are poisoned by lead
hazards in their homes. To protect yourself, your family and
any tenants, you can use a licensed lead abatement contractor
with workers who have been trained and certified in lead
abatement.
In Tennessee, we have a similar warning:
A common source of high-dose lead exposure to young
children is deteriorating paint in homes and buildings.
They say:
Hire a certified lead-based paint professional to remove
lead-based paint from your home.
In Oklahoma, they say:
Lead poisoning is the No. 1 environmental health hazard for
children. Remodeling a house covered in lead paint will
create dust and paint chips that can cause lead poisoning if
inhaled or ingested. Protect your family from lead during
remodeling.
The State says:
If you hire contractors, make sure they understand the
causes of lead poisoning and how to stay safe.
In my home State of California, this is what they say:
Lead in paint chips, dust, and soil cling to toys, fingers,
and other objects children put into their mouths. This is the
most common way children get lead poisoning.
Many construction professionals today still do not know about the
harmful effects of lead. They may not even know that simple painting,
remodeling, or renovation projects can cause lead poisoning.
I think it is very important to note that industry has had years to
understand and prepare for this rule. EPA
[[Page S4495]]
began the rulemaking in 2006, and contracting organizations and other
stakeholders met and talked with the agency. EPA issued a final rule in
2008. The rule did not go into effect until 2010.
EPA got hundreds of comments during the rulemaking process. The
agency has joined with the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Ad
Council to sponsor a nationwide public advertising campaign to raise
awareness of the dangers of lead poisoning to children.
Advertisements are being distributed to more than 33,000 media
outlets, and workers are already trained and more workers are receiving
training in order to ensure compliance with this rule's safeguards.
Let me tell you, Senator Collins has stated on this floor that she
supports getting the lead out of our homes, that she supports training
the contractors. The reason she is stopping this--and make no mistake,
stopping this program, which means more lead poisoning in our
children--the reason is, she says, there is not enough trainers.
So we called EPA. I spoke to Senator Feinstein about this, and we
find no such thing. According to EPA, States across the Nation have
more than enough trainers to handle renovation needs at this point in
the year. In areas of States that may be harder to get to the agency
has traveling trainers who go from State to State giving classes.
EPA has stated the number of renovators needed to implement the rule
during the first full year will be achieved in the next 2 months. They
will have trained 363,000 renovators. This means training is ahead of
schedule. It is ahead of needs since we are only halfway through the
year.
As of May 19, there are 223 accredited training providers offering
training across the country; 119 are available to travel to provide
training in any State--your State, my State, any State. Most of these
trainers are offering multiple training courses each week.
As of May 19, 2010, these training providers have offered over 12,000
renovator certification classes and trained 200,000 to 250,000
renovators. Further, 238 additional training providers have applied to
become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than double
the Nation's training capacity.
Let's take a look at Maine. According to EPA, this State is estimated
to need 1,300 renovators trained in this first year that the Federal
rule protecting people from lead poisoning is in effect. As of May 19,
Maine has at least 2,686 trained renovators, and there have been 158
classes provided in the State.
Again, there are 119 traveling providers who can travel anywhere in
the country to offer courses. EPA told Senator Collins' staff, and we
found this out from EPA, that the agency would send such trainers to
northern Maine to offer classes in Bangor, where staff said there was a
need for more trainers.
EPA asked staff for contact information on the individuals who had
called the Senator asking for assistance in getting trained. So far EPA
has not received a response. In Maine, believe it or not, there have
been cancellations of training classes, and 32 classes have been
canceled. EPA believes cancellations occur because they are just not
enrolling. So to come here and say there are not enough trainers, when
her State has canceled training, just does not add up.
EPA's rules already provide exemptions for emergency situations. For
example, the recent floods in Tennessee have damaged many homes that
must now undergo renovation. On May 14, 2010, the EPA sent the State of
Tennessee a letter announcing that emergency exemptions from the
agency's lead paint repair and renovation rule applied in 42 counties
that had experienced serious flooding. EPA stated:
It is permissible for individuals to perform immediate
activities necessary to protect their property and public
health. These actions may include the removal of surfaces
containing lead-based paint. Further, these actions need not
be performed by a certified individual. To the extent
necessary to alleviate the concerns associated with this
emergency.
So EPA is being very flexible. They are not saying to people who are
trying to recover from a flood: You need to remove the lead. If you
need to deal with your home, deal with it. Do not have this added
worry. So they are flexible.
Lead hazard information: having a sign to warn people about lead dust
hazards, containing lead dust in the work area by using such materials
as plastic and tape, lead dust waste handling requirements and certain
training and certification requirements. This also has been waived in
this Tennessee circumstance.
EPA has said some safeguards still apply to these renovations. But
they have exempted them from quite a few. They do not want to see our
children exposed. EPA's rules require a simple, commonsense action such
as using plastic and tape to control the migration of lead dust, the
use of HEPA vacuums that can be purchased at department stores to clean
up dust, and a prohibition on certain actions that create extremely
serious lead dust hazards. According to EPA, these safeguards add only
$35 to the cost of renovation.
I have letters from public health organizations that oppose this
amendment. I also have a letter from the EPA explaining why it opposes
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the
Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Center for Healthy Housing
Protect Women, Infants and Children from Lead Poisoning--Oppose
Amendment 4253
The undersigned organizations and individuals oppose
Senator Collins' Amendment 4253 that would put over 1 million
children at risk of irreversible lead poisoning. The
amendment would prohibit EPA from spending funds under this
emergency supplemental appropriations act to enforce the
Agency's rule to require work practices that protect people
from health threats caused by repair and renovation work on
lead-based paint.
Even though the Act does not provide EPA with any funds to
enforce these important requirements, it will put every
Senator who votes for it on record as being against EPA
enforcing safeguards in the Agency's lead repair and
renovation rule. These protections are designed to prevent
lead poisoning--a devastating disease that has ravaged our
education, judicial, and health care system for far too long.
The amendment sets a horrible precedent and if it becomes
law, it would put the entire federal government on record
against enforcing the safeguards, which may have serious
consequences.
The Environmental Protection Agency published the
``Renovate Right Rule'' to protect children from unsafe lead
exposure caused by renovations in older homes. Public health
organizations have been waiting 18 years for this rule to be
implemented and now Senator Collins is threatening to roll
back decades of lead poisoning prevention work. The rule
requires contractors to follow three simple procedures:
contain the work area, minimize dust, and clean up
thoroughly. This rule closes a major gap in lead poisoning
prevention--with only a modest $35 cost increase per
renovation job, according to a 2008 Bush Administration
analysis.
Please consider the following facts:
Lead remains the most significant environmental health
hazard to children, with over 250,000 children impacted. More
than one million children are at risk each year when homes
are renovated.
Lead is especially toxic for young children. It can cause
permanent brain damage, loss of IQ, behavior and memory
problems and reduced growth.
Among adults, lead exposure can result in reproductive
problems, high blood pressure, nerve disorders and memory
problems.
Countless children have suffered the consequences of lead
exposure due to the delays in finalizing the rule. Don't vote
for an amendment that will put you on record as being against
enforcing these important public health protections.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Morley, National Center for Healthy Housing,
Columbia, MD; Bill Menrath, Healthy Homes LLC, Cincinnati,
OH; Roberta Hazen Aaronson, Childhood Lead Action Project,
Providence, RI; Margie Coons, WI Division of Public Health,
Madison, WI; Melanie Hudson, Children's Health Forum,
Washington, DC; Yanna Lambrindou, Parents for Nontoxic
Alternatives, Washington, DC; Linda Kite, Healthy Homes
Collaborative, Los Angeles, CA; Shan Magnuson, Santa Rosa,
CA; Bay Area Get the Lead Out Coalition, CA; Fresno
Interdenominational Refugee Ministries, Fresno, CA; Jose A.
Garcia, lnquilinos Unidos, Los Angeles, CA; Rafael Barajas,
L.A. Community Legal Center and Educational, Huntington Park,
CA; Jim Peralta, Interstate Property Inspections, Inc.,
Rochester, NY; Nancy Halpern Ibrahim, Esperanza Community
Housing Corporation, Los Angeles, CA; Mark Allen, Alameda
County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Oakland, CA; Martha
Arguello, Physicians for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles,
CA.
David Reynolds, Facility Manager, Jackson, MS; Larry Gross,
Coalition for Economic Survival, Los Angeles, CA; Jang Woo
[[Page S4496]]
Nam, Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Los Angeles, CA;
Leann Howell, Riverside, NJ; Richard A. Baker, Baker
Environmental Consulting, Inc., Lenexa, KS; Greg Secord,
Rebuilding Together, Washington, DC; Kim Foreman,
Environmental Health Watch, Cleveland, OH; Sue Gunderson,
ClearCorps USA, Minneapolis, MN; J. Perry Brake, American
Management Resources Corporation, Fort Myers, FL; Paul Haan,
Healthy Homes Coalition of West Michigan, MI; Andrew
McLellan, Environmental Education Associates, Buffalo, NY;
Ruth Ann, National Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning,
Baltimore, MD; Kathy Lauckner, UNLV-Harry Reid Center for
Environmental Studies, Las Vegas, NV; Greg Spiegel, Inner
City Law Center, Los Angeles, CA; Kent Ackley, RI Lead Techs,
East Providence, RI; Elena I. Popp, Los Angeles, CA; Lana
Zahn, from Niagara County Childhood Lead Poisoning Program,
Lockport, NY.
____
United States Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, May 27, 2010.
Hon. Barbara Boxer,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for your interest in the
amendment proposed by Senator Collins that is aimed at
eliminating EPA's enforcement of various regulations that are
necessary to protect children from lead based paint
poisoning. The stated purpose of this amendment is to
``prohibit the imposition of fines and liability under''
various rules on lead paint, including the Lead Renovation,
Repair and Painting Rule.
We oppose the amendment on the grounds that it may set a
precedent that Congress seeks to prevent enforcement against
criminal actions with respect to the lead rules. The
amendment could be interpreted as seeking to stop EPA from
taking criminal enforcement action against those who
knowingly or willfully violate lead rules, even in egregious
cases causing lead poisoning in children. A real possibility
exists that a contractor who knowingly or willfully ignores
the new lead rules during a renovation would not be held
accountable under this language. Furthermore, such an
amendment could stop EPA from taking enforcement action
against those who improperly perform renovations. Such an
amendment could pose lead hazards from renovations to an
estimated 137,000 children under age 6 and to one million
individuals age 6 and older. Finally, there are 250,000
people who have followed the requirements of the law to
become trained and certified. The amendment is inequitable
because it favors those who were slow to comply.
Overall, the amendment as written could be read as an
expression of the intent of Congress to block implementation
and enforcement of the rules on lead based paint. If you or
your staff have any further questions regarding our concerns
on the amendment, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator.
Mrs. BOXER. I think it is important to take a stand for our children.
This would completely shut down this important program. It would say it
is put on hold, even in the worst circumstances.
The National Center for Healthy Housing sent a letter: ``Protect
Women, Infants and Children from Lead Poisoning--Oppose Amendment
4253.''
Let me tell you, it is signed by some important organizations: The
National Center for Healthy Housing in Maryland; the Healthy Homes LLC,
in Cincinnati, OH; Childhood Lead Action Project in Providence, RI;
Division of Public Health in Madison, WI; Children's Health Forum in
Washington, DC; Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives, Washington, DC;
Healthy Homes Collaborative, Los Angeles; and Bay Area Get the Lead Out
Coalition, CA; Fresno Interdenominational Ministries in Fresno. The
list goes on and on, many from California.
Interstate Property Inspections, Inc., in Rochester, NY; Alameda
County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Oakland, CA; Jackson, MI, a
facility manager says no to this amendment. The Coalition for Economic
Survival says no. Riverside, NJ, we have a letter from them. We have a
letter from Kansas. We have more from Cleveland, from Minnesota, from
Florida, the American Management Resources Corporation; Healthy Homes
Coalition in Michigan; Environmental Education Associates in Buffalo;
Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning in Baltimore, MD. Here is an
interesting one. The Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies in Las
Vegas, NV. We ought to make sure our leader knows they have taken a
stand here.
The Rhode Island Lead Techs, in East Providence, and from Niagara
County, Childhood Lead Poisoning Program.
This is where we stand. Finally, we have a rule in place, and it
happens to be that President Obama, when he was a Senator, pushed hard
for that rule. It made it through, and there has been long lead time.
We are ready to go.
Whenever there is a renovation now, and we know there is lead
involved, we have to make sure somebody is trained.
EPA has the trainers. The fact that someone stands on the floor of
the Senate and says they do not flies in the face of what I read. We
know how many we have. We know there are many who would come on and go
anyplace across the country. These training sessions take about 8
hours, and then the person is licensed to do this removal.
That is it. Let's not turn back the clock. Let's not go back to the
time that we did not know lead caused these problems. Lead is poison.
Lead is poison. We are ready to get it out of these old buildings. We
are ready to do it, and I do not see why we should turn the clock back
to another time and place and say we are doing it for the reason that
there are not enough trainers when there are enough trainers.
That is not right. So I will say at this time, I do not see anybody
else here. I hope we will vote down the Collins amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
memorial day
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on this upcoming final day in May we
will observe Memorial Day, and remember the men and women in uniform
who have loved this country and given their lives to defend it.
Memorial Day is a time to honor their extraordinary sacrifice.
We have a proud tradition of service in my home State of Kentucky,
home to Fort Knox, Fort Campbell and many of our brave troops. Just a
few days ago soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division, based out of
Fort Campbell, cased their colors in preparation for deployment to
Afghanistan. Training the local police force will be a major focus for
this mission, the fourth deployment for the division headquarters since
9/11.
More than 10,000 men and women from the 101st are already deployed to
Afghanistan, and by the end of August that number will reach 20,000.
In addition, about 3,500 soldiers from the Army's 3rd Brigade Combat
Team, based at Fort Knox, are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan soon,
as are up to about 2,000 Kentucky Army and Air National Guard members.
Five soldiers from the 101st have died in Afghanistan since January.
Every soldier preparing to ship out faces that same risk, but that does
not deter them from duty and service. They are working to keep their
families back home and all Americans safe.
I have met with many of the family members of soldiers, sailors and
marines from Kentucky who gave their lives in service. I have let them
know that their loved ones will not be forgotten by this country. And
they are not forgotten in the U.S. Senate. We are honored to share this
land with such brave heroes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note that we faced a long discussion
about a bill that was just passed out of the Armed Services Committee.
I, unfortunately, felt compelled to oppose it, but I appreciate working
with the Senator from Illinois as we discussed it.
Amendment No. 4173
Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are going to vote on this
emergency supplemental legislation, not having voted on the amendment I
offered, along with Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, my Democratic
colleague. It received 59 votes a few weeks ago. It is designed to help
contain our rapacious tendency to spend, spend, spend. We give the
phrase ``a drunken sailor spending'' a bad name the way we are spending
in this Congress.
I had hoped we would get another vote on it. I am disappointed
Senator
[[Page S4497]]
Reid and the leadership on the Democratic side took action to see that
a vote would not occur. I called it up very early in the process, and I
am disappointed.
The amendment would have made it more difficult to break the budget
and allowed more scrutiny for us before we violate it. The emergency
supplemental legislation that is before us violates the budget. Every
penny of this is spending beyond the budget. It has items that are not
what we think of as emergencies.
If our military men and women have a health problem and there is a
condition that requires us to take care of them, that takes extra
money. We deal with these issues in the Armed Services Committee. But
that is not an emergency. Those kinds of things happen all the time. We
are allocating $13 billion for an Agent Orange compensation plan that,
I have to say, appears to me to not be written very tightly. Anyone who
basically served in Vietnam who has heart disease can apparently claim
some benefit under it.
I am not saying that is unjustified. It may be. What I will say is,
it is not the kind of thing we should use emergency spending for when
the country is going in a wrong direction.
We will soon be voting on tax extenders. I want to send a warning out
to my colleagues and to the people who are concerned about the state of
the American economy. I will quote some comments that have been said
recently.
Keith Hennessey, who is former director of the National Economic
Council, wrote this:
House Democrats have modified their ``extenders'' bill and
appear to be bringing it to the floor for a vote today.
Monday's version would have increased the deficit by $134
billion over the next decade. Today's version would increase
the deficit by $84 billion over the same timeframe. What hard
choices did the leaders make to cut the net deficit impact by
$50 billion? None. They simply extended the most expensive
provisions for a shorter period of time.
What did they do? There was a complaint they had $134
billion in increased debt, and they were dealing with some
issues. They did not pay for them over a long enough time.
They just reduced it.
Mr. Hennessey goes on to say:
The new bill extends the unemployment insurance and COBRA
health insurance benefits through November 2010, rather than
December of 2010 in Monday's version.
They just reduced it one month to save a little money there and make
the bill look a little better. Does anyone doubt we will be coming back
to extend it further in the future?
Then he goes on to say:
The Medicare ``doctors' fix'' would extend through 2011,
instead of through 2013 . . .
Which means that after this year, our physicians will be back here
complaining about the impending 21, 22 percent cut in their Medicare
payments. They do not get paid enough now. We cannot cut our physicians
20 percent. They are going to quit practicing and stop doing Medicare
work.
What did they do when somebody said: You are increasing the debt too
much? We will just pass the doctors fix through the end of this year
and push it on to the next, instead of doing it through 2013 like they
planned.
He goes on to say:
The Congressional Budget Office has to score the amendment
as written, so these two provisions are scored as ``saving''
$50 billion relative to the Monday version. But just as it
was unreasonable to assume that the increased Medicare
spending for doctors would suddenly drop at the end of 2013,
it is similarly foolhardy it will stop [in the future]. They
are doing in this bill exactly what they did in the two
health care bills that were rammed through in March--shifting
some of the spending into future legislation to reduce the
apparent cost of the current bill.
Will it work again?
Well, we are going to see.
Mr. President, I would just make one more note. An editorial in
today's New York Times titled ``Easy Money, Hard Truths'' by famous
hedge fund manager David Einhorn, who lives and dies by Wall Street,
moving money, keeping up with interest rates, lays out our budget
problem very plainly in his column in the New York Times.
Before this recession it appeared that absent action, the
government's long-term commitments would become a problem in
a few decades. I believe the government response to the
recession--
And let me add, that is the extraordinary spending we have done in
the last few months--
has created budgetary stress sufficient to bring about the
crisis much sooner. Our generation--not our grandchildren's--
will have to deal with the consequences.
He goes on to say:
According to the Bank for International Settlements, the
United States' structural deficit--the amount of our deficit
adjusted for the economic cycle--has increased from 3.1
percent of gross domestic product in 2007 to 9.2 percent in
2010. This does not take into account the very large
liabilities the government has taken on by socializing losses
in the housing market. We have not seen the bills for bailing
out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even more so the Federal
Housing Administration, which is issuing government-
guaranteed loans to noncreditworthy borrowers on terms easier
than anything offered during the housing bubble. Government
accounting is done on a cash basis, so promises to pay in the
future--whether Social Security benefits or loan guarantees--
do not count in the budget until the money goes out the door.
He goes on to say:
A good percentage of the structural increase in the deficit
is because last year's ``stimulus'' was not stimulus in the
traditional sense. Rather than a one-time injection of
spending to replace a cyclical reduction in private demand,
the vast majority of the stimulus has been a permanent
increase in the base level of government spending--including
spending on government jobs.
He goes on to say:
In 2008, according to the Cato Institute, the average
Federal civilian salary with benefits was $119,982, compared
with $59,909 for the average private sector worker; the
disparity has grown enormously over the last decade.
Inflation from our current high-spending culture is problematic as
well. According to Einhorn:
Government statistics are about the last place one should
look for inflation, as they are designed to not show much.
Over the last 35 years, government has changed the way it
calculates inflation several times. According to the Web site
Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the
Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with
about 2 percent in the official statistics today.
He goes on to say this:
At what level of government debt and future commitments
does government default go from being unthinkable to
inevitable, and how does our government think about that
risk? I recently posed this question to one of the
President's senior economic advisers.
Mr. Einhorn asked him a very tough question: Is a government default
on the horizon? Is it unthinkable or now is it on the way to being
inevitable? And this is what Mr. Einhorn said the government adviser to
President Obama said:
He answered that the government is different from financial
institutions because it can print money, and statistically
the United States is not as bad off as some countries. For an
investor, these promises do not inspire confidence.
So he goes on to warn about the danger of a crisis where the Treasury
seeks to get people to buy our Treasury bills, to buy our bonds, and
this is what can happen. He said:
In the face of deteriorating market confidence, a rating
agency issues an untimely downgrade, setting off a rush of
sales by existing bondholders. This has been the experience
of many troubled corporations, where downgrades served as the
coup de grace. The current upset in the European sovereign
debt market is a prequel to what might happen here.
That is today's warning in the New York Times, and we should take it
very seriously.
The bill before us is irresponsible. It spends too much, it creates
too much debt, and we should not have done it. We did not have to do
it. And the bill that is coming up, the tax extenders, is also
irresponsible. It spends too much money. We do not have to do it, and
we should not do it.
The American people understand this completely. They tell me about it
everywhere I go. Are we in denial in this body? Do we think it is just
business as usual; that we can just continue to spend, spend, spend,
borrow, borrow, borrow, and then presumably we will just print money
and pay our debts, deflating our currency, eroding the value for the
good and decent people of this country who have worked hard and saved
all their lives? This is not good. The American people are right. No
wonder our ratings with the public are so low.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Imbalance of Regulatory Capture
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, one of my primary concerns in the debate
on
[[Page S4498]]
Wall Street reform has been that we should not write legislation that
turns all of the major reform proposals over to the regulators.
Instead, we should follow on the footsteps of our forebears from the
1930s--those Senators of old who made the tough decisions and wrote
bright-line laws which lasted for over 60 years, until they were
repealed. I also argued that we should not depend on regulators who had
not used powers they already possessed.
Instead, we passed a Senate bill that, in the area of bank
regulation, primarily restates existing regulatory powers, provides
some general directional authority, and leaves us with the hope that
our present regulators will devise and enforce rules that prevent
another financial crisis; that a systemic risk council of regulators
will be able to detect early warning signals of impending financial
instability; that the regulators will impose higher capital standards
on systemically significant banks; that the regulators will be able to
resolve failing institutions, and so on, and so on, and so on.
Yesterday, a third reason for writing laws and not turning to
regulators was brought home to me. It relates to how the Securities and
Exchange Commission is studying the incredibly unregulated growth of
high-frequency trading.
I am deeply concerned by preliminary reports of the makeup of the SEC
panels studying high-frequency trading after the ``flash crash'' of May
6. On that day, the Dow Jones fell almost 1,000 points, temporarily
causing a $1 trillion drop in market value. I call on the SEC to make
those panels more balanced by adding individuals from outside Wall
Street who are truly sincere and knowledgeable about the further
actions the SEC may need to take.
In just a few years' time, high-frequency trading has grown from just
30 percent to 70 percent of the daily trading volumes of stocks. These
black box computers trade thousands of shares per second across more
than 50 market centers with no real transparency--no real
transparency--and therefore no effective regulation. If those
ingredients--no transparency, no regulation--sound familiar, it might
be because those are the same characteristics applied to over-the-
counter derivatives.
My concern about the opaque and unregulated nature of high-frequency
trading led me to write to SEC Chair Mary Schapiro last August 21,
2009, calling for a comprehensive review of market structure issues. I
wrote:
The current market structure appears to be the consequence
of regulatory structures designed to increase efficiency and
thereby provide the greatest benefits to the highest volume
traders. The implications of the current system for buy-and-
hold investors have not been the subject of a thorough
analysis. I believe the SEC's rules have effectively placed
``increased liquidity'' as a value above fair execution of
trades for all investors.
On September 10, Chair Schapiro responded, saying she recognized the
importance of standing up for the interests of long-term investors and
would undertake a comprehensive review of market structure issues.
Because I had heard these concerns raised by credible voices, in a
speech on September 14, 2009, I predicted some of the events of last
May 6. At that time, I said:
Unlike specialists and traditional market-makers that are
regulated, some of these new high-frequency traders are
unregulated, though they are acting in a market-maker
capacity. If we experience another shock to the financial
system, will this new, and dominant, type of pseudo market
maker act in the interest of the markets when we really need
them? Will they step up and maintain a two-sided market, or
will they simply shut off the machines and walk away? Even
worse, will they seek even further profit and exacerbate the
downside?
On October 28, Senator Jack Reed convened a hearing in the securities
subcommittee on these issues. He graciously asked me to testify at the
hearing, where I said in my first statement:
First, we must avoid systemic risk to the markets. Our
recent history teaches us that when markets develop too
rapidly--when they are not transparent, effectively regulated
or fair--a breakdown can trigger a disaster.
On November 20, I sent a letter to Chairman Schapiro summarizing some
of the hearing testimony and called on the Commission to acted quickly
to ``tag'' high-frequency traders and address the systemic risk they
pose. On December 3, Chairman Schapiro responded to my letter and wrote
that the SEC would issue a concept release in January and put forth two
rule proposals that would, respectively, impose tagging and disclosure
requirements on high-frequency traders and address the risk of naked
access arrangements.
In January, the SEC did indeed issue a concept release, as well as a
proposed rule banning naked access arrangements. Unfortunately, it was
months later--April 14--before the SEC finally issued the ``large
trader'' rule requiring tagging of high-frequency traders. In that
proposed rule, the SEC noted that the current data collection system is
inadequate to recreate market events and unusual trading activity.
Now think about this. This was back on April 14, before the May 6
thing, and what she said was: In the proposed rule, the SEC noted that
the current data collection system is inadequate to recreate market
events and unusual trading activity. Is there any question why we don't
know yet what happened on May 6?
Then, on May 6, the disaster struck that I and others were worried
about. For 20 minutes, our stock market did not perform its central
function: discovering prices by balancing buyers and sellers. And as
the SEC has noted--both before and after the ``flash crash''--it indeed
does not have the data to discover easily the causes of the market
meltdown.
It is true that the SEC and CFTC have gone into overdrive since May
6. Indeed, the staffs and Commissioners of both agencies have worked
heroically around the clock to try to recreate and study the unusual
trading activity of that day. They have kicked into high gear and
formed an advisory commission. They have quickly come together to
propose two more possible rules: an industry-wide circuit breaker so
that if we ever again have another market ``flash crash,'' we won't see
absurd prices for some of our Nation's proudest company stocks, and
also a long overdue proposal to have a consolidated audit trail across
market centers that will finally provide regulators with access to the
information they need to police manipulation, understand trading
practices, and reconstruct unusual market activity in a timely manner.
After weeks of helpful action by the SEC--when the industry itself
was helping the agencies to find band-aid solutions--now is not the
time to see the SEC continue with rulemaking by Wall Street consensus.
We may need further action, probably against the interests of those
who benefit from the current market design.
Further action only through industry-consensus is a prescription for
no change.
This all brings me to why I became so concerned yesterday. As part of
the Commission's ongoing market structure review, the SEC has decided
to hold a roundtable discussion on June 2--good idea.
I have learned preliminary reports about the make-up of the high
frequency trader panel.
Based on those reports, the panel is dramatically out of balance.
It appears as though it was chosen primarily to hear testimony that
reinforces the top-line defenses of the current market structure--that
high frequency trading provides liquidity and reduces spreads--rather
than what it should be doing, a deep dive into the problems that caused
severe market dislocation on May 6 and damaged our market's
credibility.
I have called on the SEC to add more participants to give the panels
some semblance of balance.
Frankly, I find the preliminary reports to be so stacked in favor of
the entrenched money that has caused the very problems we seek to
address that the panel itself stands as a symbolic failure of the
regulators and regulatory system--that is, with the exception of a few
brave souls who have been invited to critique the conventional industry
wisdom.
Let me read from the comment letters and statements of five of the
expected participants.
Not surprisingly, in comments to the SEC and members the industry
made prior to the unusual volatility of May 6, each of these five
participants reported that--contrary to the concerns I and others had
expressed--they think the markets are running as smoothly as ever.
One of the expected panelists wrote:
[[Page S4499]]
[O]ver the past 18 months--since the height of the
financial crisis--the Commission has been very active with
rule making proposals. Nearly all of the issues that may have
contributed to diminishing investor confidence have been
addressed by Commission rule-making.
Ironic, after what happened on May 6.
That panelist also wrote:
We believe that the current national market system is
performing extremely well. For instance, the performance
during the 2008 financial crisis suggests that our equity
markets are resilient and robust even during times of stress
and dislocation.
Another expected participant wrote in an email sent widely that his
exchange--
doesn't believe the equities markets are broken.
To the contrary, we would argue that the U.S. equity
markets were a shining model of reliability and healthy
function during what some are calling one of the most
challenging and difficult times in recent market history.
Another expected participant wrote:
Implementing any type of regulation that would limit the
tools or the effectiveness of automation available for use by
any class of investor in the name of ``fairness'' would turn
back the clock on the U.S. Equity market and undo years of
innovation and investment.
That is an interesting comment, because I have always believed that
fairness was the hallmark and number one priority of U.S. markets. That
is what people say. That is why people come to America. They don't come
to invest in some casino game. Liquidity is important, but the key
thing for our markets to be credible is fairness.
Another expected panelist sounded a similar note in a comment letter
filed before May 6.
All market regulation should be evaluated with respect to
its impact on the liquidity and efficiency of equity markets
for the benefit of investors . . . For example, certain
short-term traders and high frequency traders provide
liquidity to the markets. Although some of these short-term
traders may differ at times in their goals and overall
position vis-a-vis other types of investors, we believe, on
the whole, that the liquidity they provide is beneficial to
the markets.
I agree with that statement. Liquidity is vital to the strength and
stability of our markets.
But on May 6, liquidity vanished, as some of the short-term traders
left the marketplace. And for those who didn't, we learned that the
liquidity they provide was about 1/100th of an inch deep.
Finally, another panelist co-signed a letter stating:
We believe that any assessment of the current market
structure or the impacts of `high frequency trading' should
begin with the recognition that by virtually all measures,
the quality of the markets has never been better . . . .
The equity markets have also proven to be remarkably
resilient. Despite the significant stresses that occurred
during the recent financial crisis, U.S. equity markets
remained open, liquid and efficient every day, while other
less competitive and less transparent markets failed.
The SEC has picked one voice for the panel--Sal Arnuk of Themis
Trading--who has been a vocal and intelligent critic of high frequency
trading.
He has valiantly raised questions about market structure and the
trading advantages that high frequency traders enjoy, but he is being
asked to go up against six Wall Street insiders who will no doubt be
primed to argue against his position.
People wonder why Americans have such little faith in Washington, DC.
Talk about a stacked deck.
I am particularly concerned by the upcoming SEC roundtable on high
frequency trading because it is reminiscent of the one that the SEC
held last September on ``naked'' short selling.
Naked short selling occurs when a trader sells a financial instrument
short without first borrowing it or even ensuring it can be borrowed.
Just a reason on faith that it may be borrowed. What this means is
traders can sell something they do not own or have not borrowed.
Americans understand you cannot sell something you don't have.
After the SEC's repeal of the 70-year uptick rule in 2007, abusive
short selling facilitated the sort of self-fulfilling bear raids on
stocks that we saw during the financial crisis.
Since coming to office last year, I have highlighted this serious
problem through a series of speeches and letters to the SEC. Along with
seven other Senators, of both parties, I also called for pre-borrow
requirements and centralized ``hard locate'' system solutions.
In response to those concerns, the SEC held a roundtable last
September to examine these proposals.
Unfortunately, like the panel coming up, the panel was stacked with
industry representatives even though the industry had done virtually
nothing to address what had become a glaring problem.
Listen to the lineup: Goldman Sachs, State Street, and the Depository
Trust & Clearing Corporation DTCC, among others, participated.
Not surprisingly, these panelists were resistant to the hard-locate
requirement and other serious solutions, even while they generally
acknowledged that there are bad actors who engage in naked short
selling and don't comply with the current locate system.
DTCC even backed away from discussing the very proposal it had laid
before the U.S. Senate.
I fear that an industry-stacked panel in the upcoming roundtable on
high frequency trading will be more of the same and will once again
dismiss fundamental reforms, ultimately leaving retail and long-term
investors with half-measures or none at all.
Why? Because repeatedly we see that regulators are dependent almost
exclusively for the information and evidence they receive about market
problems on the very market participants they are supposed to be
confronting about needed changes.
This is as true in other agencies--we filed the papers just last
month and you can see it--like the agency charged with the oversight of
oil drilling--as it is at the SEC.
The regulators are surrounded--indeed they consciously choose to
surround themselves--by an echo chamber of industry players who are
making literally billions of dollars under the current system.
Who speaks to the regulators on behalf of the average investor?
Who outside of the industry itself has access to the data that only
the industry controls?
Who other than the market players who have invested so much of their
capital into the very systems that profit and serve their own interests
has the analytical capability to lead the SEC in a different direction?
We must have evidenced-based rules in our system, we are told.
But when all the evidence comes from Wall Street, who is going to
stop Wall Street from once again pulling the wool over the SEC's eyes?
The events of May 6 demonstrate that technological developments have
outpaced regulatory understanding. If we are to ensure our markets are
safe from future failures--because the markets did fail their primary
function on May 6th--regulators must catch up immediately.
Competition is critical in our markets and has led to many positive
developments. But with competition, we also need good regulation. Just
like we need referees on the field who will blow their whistles when
the game becomes rigged. In football, we don't let the players make up
the rules during the game.
So, we need action from our regulators, not negotiation. We need
independent leadership by the SEC, not management by consensus with
Wall Street.
Again, I call on the SEC to rebalance these panels. The Commission
will never be able to catch up if it hears mostly from those who will
fight to maintain the status quo.
The SEC must hear from those who speak for long-term investors and
others who use our capital markets, not just from those who profit from
high frequency trading.
The American people deserve no less.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, because I was not allowed to offer my
amendment as part of the regular order, in a moment I will move to
suspend the rules to offer my amendment that will set a deadline to
complete 700 miles of double layer fencing on our Southwest border, as
is required by current law.
If any Member of the Senate stood up today and said that we should
not seal the oil leak in the gulf until we have a comprehensive plan to
clean it up, we would all say that is absurd. Certainly we need to seal
that leak as quickly as possible to minimize the cleanup later.
[[Page S4500]]
But that is exactly the kind of logic the President and my Democratic
colleagues are using when it comes to immigration. They are insisting
we will not secure our borders until Republicans agree to a
comprehensive plan with some form of amnesty and road to citizenship
for those who have come here illegally. This is a debate we have had
before and it was not settled here as much as it was out across
America.
Americans have said: Secure the border first. The big immigration
bill we were trying to pass in 2006 failed because Americans finally
convinced Senators that our first job is to secure the border;
otherwise, any immigration policy is irrelevant.
At that time we made a promise to the American people and passed a
law that we would build 700 miles of double layer fencing in areas
where pedestrian traffic is the biggest problem. We have seen that
where that has been implemented it has been effective. But,
unfortunately, since 2006, even though we were promised this could be
done in a year or two, only 34 miles of double layer fencing has been
built since we passed this law. In other words, the Federal Government
is ignoring its own law at the peril of the citizens in Arizona, Texas,
and those all over the country. By not keeping our promises, by not
enforcing the law, we have created devastation and war on our southern
border with Mexico.
Thousands of Mexicans have been killed. We encouraged drug cartels
all over the world to ship their goods through our borders. Arms
trafficking, human trafficking--we have mass chaos on our border
because we will not do what we know works.
The President is saying we have done over 90 percent of the fencing
that we promised, but this is the virtual fencing that the chief of
border security has said has been a complete failure. There are only 34
miles of the 700 miles that we promised our country and put into law.
My amendment does not make new law. It just sets a deadline, that the
fence we promised will be completed within the next year.
Motion to Suspend
Mr. President, I move to suspend the provisions of rule XXII,
paragraph 2, including germaneness requirements for the purpose of
proposing and considering my amendment, No. 4177.
I ask for the yeas and nays and reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for
Senator DeMint to be recognized. That has already happened so we don't
have to worry about that because he was recognized, because he has
already moved to suspend Senate rule XXII.
I appreciate his understanding and finishing his remarks as quickly
as he did. The amendment he is offering is in regard to border fence
completion. I ask the Senator, does he still need time to speak,
additional time?
Mr. DeMINT. If someone speaks against it, I will reserve 1 minute to
respond.
Mr. REID. I would like the agreement to indicate if someone speaks
against the DeMint amendment, that he be entitled to equal time in
opposition thereto.
I further ask unanimous consent there be no amendment in order to the
DeMint motion to suspend; that upon the use or yielding back of the
time, the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the DeMint motion
to suspend; that if the DeMint motion to suspend is not agreed to, then
no further amendment or motion on this subject of the DeMint motion be
in order; that upon disposition of the DeMint motion, the Senate resume
consideration of the Collins amendment, No. 4253, and there be 2
minutes of debate remaining prior to a vote in relation thereto, with
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Boxer and
Collins or their designees, with no amendment in order to the Collins
amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote in relation to the Collins amendment; that upon
disposition of the Collins amendment, the Senate then consider the Burr
amendment, No. 4273, with an Inouye side-by-side amendment No. 4299;
that the amendments be debated concurrently for 8 minutes, equally
divided and controlled between Senators Inouye and Burr or their
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate
proceed to vote with respect to Inouye amendment No. 4299 to be
followed by a vote in relation to Burr amendment No. 4273; that upon
disposition of these two amendments, all remaining pending amendments
be withdrawn, with no further amendments in order except a managers'
amendment which has been cleared by the managers and leaders; and if
offered, the amendment be considered and agreed to and the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table; that all postcloture time be yielded
back with no further intervening action or debate; the substitute
amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a
third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill,
as amended, without further intervening action or debate; that upon
passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with
the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the
Appropriations Committee appointed as conferees; provided further that
the cloture motion with respect to the bill be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can just say, before anyone says
anything, if we complete this, these will be all of the votes for the
evening and the week. We are waiting for the House to do action on the
extenders package, a jobs bill. The latest information I have is that
they will not complete that until sometime late this evening. I have
spoken to the Republican leader on several occasions. We are going to
have several days to take a look at this because I understand it is
going to come to us in pieces, not all as one bill.
We will take a look at that. We will start to work on that the Monday
we get back. We are going to work to have a vote on that Monday we get
back. I think it is June 7. We do not know what the vote will be on,
but we will have it on probably a nomination. We are trying to figure
out what that will be. I do not think we will be ready to start any
actual voting on the so-called extenders package.
The Republican leader and I have talked about that. There are certain
amendments that people have indicated they would like to offer to that.
I think, frankly, it works better to allow people to offer amendments.
There is no reason to move forward on any procedural effort to curtail
that at this time.
The next work period is 4 weeks. That is all we have. We have so many
things to do, and we are going to do our best to get the extenders
done. We have a small business jobs matter that we need to move to. It
is so important for our country's economy. We have talked about this
for months now.
We have a bipartisan food safety bill that we need to do. That would
be a good time to do that. And we have a number of other issues we will
try our best to work through as quickly as we can. I appreciate
everyone's cooperation this week. This gives great relief to the
Pentagon. The House, that is supposed to complete their work on this
bill today, did not.
So that is something we will have to take a look at, what they do,
and get the conference completed as quickly as we can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The DeMint motion to suspend the rules is pending.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, pending what the House does, there will be
some unanimous consent requests offered on both sides as I understand.
But everyone should be aware of that later this evening maybe.
I do not have anyone here to speak on the DeMint amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has asked for
the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be.
If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the
DeMint motion to suspend the rules.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln)
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
[[Page S4501]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
Landrieu
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--52
Akaka
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Chambliss
Lincoln
McCaskill
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
52. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Amendment No. 4253
Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 4253,
offered by the Senator from Maine.
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have 30
seconds remaining, which I am going to yield to the Senator from
Tennessee.
Mr. President, the Senator from California has misrepresented what my
amendment would do. It does not repeal or change the requirement that
EPA has for people to be trained before they remove lead-based paint.
But the fact is, the EPA rolled out this new proposal, this new
requirement, without having the training courses available. It is not
fair to slap huge fines on contractors when it is the EPA's fault the
classes have not been available. So this amendment just delays those
fines until September 30 to allow more time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the worst natural disaster since the
President took office was the recent flooding in Tennessee. There are
13,000 painters, plumbers, carpenters in Nashville alone, who have
11,000 structures to work on. They will get fined up to $37,500 a day
if they disturb six square feet of lead paint in a home unless they get
this certificate, and there are only three EPA trainers in the entire
State of Tennessee to train them. This is making it harder and more
expensive for people to get their homes fixed after the flood. Senator
Collins has a reasonable amendment to give them until September to get
their certification. Earlier today my colleague on the Environment and
Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, said that the EPA had granted a
waiver to Tennessee because of the President's disaster declaration for
45 counties. Well that is true. However, the waiver means that if your
basement was flooded--and there was lead paint--then you could bulldoze
the house but not repair the basement. That's not the kind of relief we
were looking for in Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. President, and I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, let me say to the Senator from
Tennessee, in his State all the counties that had flooding are exempt
from this rule. I have the letter from the EPA, and I spoke with them
about it.
Secondly, let us not go back on this important issue. Lead is very
dangerous, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and children. This
amendment would stop any funds in this bill from being used to enforce
the EPA's lead paint renovation program, which was put into place by
President Bush's EPA.
There is a training program, and my friend from Maine says there are
not enough trainers. There are so many trainers that there are 119 of
them who are ready to travel to each and every State, and already they
are ahead of the training. Mr. President, 360,000 people will be
trained in the next 2 months.
What this amendment does is rewards the contractors who did not get
the training and it hurts the others. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Amendment No.
4253, which would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from
enforcing its lead paint renovation rule.
As we all know, lead poisoning can lead to learning and behavioral
disorders so it is absolutely vital that all precautions are taken to
protect children from exposure to lead paint. EPA issued the Lead Paint
Renovation Rule because more than one million of America's children are
still being poisoned by lead-based paint in their homes.
This new rule, which was finalized on April 22nd of this year,
requires that contractors receive lead paint abatement training and
certification from EPA to do work in certain facilities like homes,
schools and day care centers.
I certainly appreciate the concerns that Senator Collins, Senator
Alexander and other members have raised on behalf of contractors who
have had difficulty getting access to their required training
particularly in States like Tennessee that have recently experienced
natural disasters.
Two weeks ago when the Committee marked up this bill, I committed to
Senators Collins and Alexander that my staff and I would work with
them, and with EPA, to see if their concerns could be addressed.
Our staffs worked with EPA for several days, but unfortunately, we
were not able to come to an agreement regarding an administrative
solution to this problem. However, I want to emphasize that EPA has
gotten the message that Members are concerned, and they are taking
steps to improve the situation.
EPA had already indicated in an April 20, 2010 memorandum that it
does not plan to take enforcement actions against firms who applied for
certification before the rule took effect on April 22nd and are just
waiting for their paperwork to be approved.
Now they are focusing on making more training opportunities
available. An estimated 250,000 contractors have already been trained,
and EPA has committed to help make additional training classes
available in under-represented areas and areas affected by natural
disasters so that contractors in those areas aren't unduly impacted by
this rule.
EPA is also working to increase the number of training providers. As
of May 19th, there were 223 accredited providers offering lead paint
abatement training across the country, including 119 providers that
travel to multiple States.
EPA tells me that 238 additional training providers have also applied
to become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than
double the nation's training capacity.
I understand that some of my colleagues continue to be concerned that
EPA still has not done enough. However, this amendment is not the
solution we are looking for.
Supporters of this amendment have portrayed it as a common-sense
solution that simply allows contractors additional time to get lead
paint abatement training required by the rule.
In reality, passing this amendment would put the United States Senate
on record as supporting efforts to prevent EPA from fining those who
knowingly violate the provisions of the rule--even if those actions
result in lead poisoning of children.
A contractor who willfully takes no precautions to contain or confine
lead contaminated paint chips would be given a reprieve. I am also
concerned that this amendment could excuse renovators from complying
with the most basic containment and cleanup measures.
[[Page S4502]]
I appreciate the concerns that my colleagues have raised. But this
amendment is simply a bridge too far. Loosening protections against
childhood lead poisoning is the wrong message to send.
That is why the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Lisa Jackson, and the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and
Public Works, Senator Boxer, oppose this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining
votes in this sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the Collins amendment.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln)
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Wicker
NAYS--37
Akaka
Bayh
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Chambliss
Lincoln
McCaskill
The amendment (No. 4253) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 8
minutes of debate equally divided to run concurrently on amendment No.
4273 to be offered by the Senator from North Carolina and amendment No.
4299 to be offered by the Senator from Hawaii.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Amendments Nos. 4299 and 4273
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on May 7, Secretary Shinseki sent a letter
informing me that the Department underestimated the number of eligible
Filipino veterans, especially those who have become U.S. citizens, in
calculating the amount needed for this program. More than 42,000
applications were received. Based on the actual applications received
before the deadline, the Department has recalculated the estimates and
identified a shortfall of $67 million.
The provision included in this supplemental does not cost a dime. It
simply allows any savings, currently unobligated and not assigned to
any ongoing project, which the VA realizes is the result of a favorable
contract environment, to be transferred to the Filipino Veterans Equity
Compensation Fund and/or retained for authorized major medical facility
projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It does not mandate
this transfer. It simply gives the VA the flexibility should the
Department want to transfer the funds for these purposes.
Just a reminder: In July of 1941 President Roosevelt invited the
Filipinos to volunteer and join the American forces, and 470,000
volunteered. In March of 1942 this Congress passed a law stating that
Filipinos who volunteered may, after the war, apply for citizenship and
receive all the benefits of American citizenship. In March of 1946 this
Congress reneged and repealed that law.
We must fulfill this commitment the country made to the Filipino
veterans who fought so bravely under our command because to deny the VA
authority to transfer to this account would renege on our commitment
and would send a dangerous signal that the Senate may not honor past
and future commitments to veterans.
Is the amendment up for consideration?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It needs to be called up.
Amendment No. 4299
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my
amendment No. 4299.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment
numbered 4299.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To allow unobligated balances in the Construction, Major
Projects account to be utilized for major medical facility projects of
the Department of Veterans Affairs otherwise authorized by law)
On page 41, line 14, insert before the colon the following:
``or may be retained in the `Construction, Major Projects'
account and used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for
such major medical facility projects (as defined under
section 8104(a) of title 38, United States Code) that have
been authorized by law as the Secretary considers
appropriate''.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
Who yields time?
The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 4273
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an
amendment numbered 4273.
Mr. BURR. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To strike section 901, relating to the transfer of amounts to
the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund)
On page 41, strike lines 10 through 24.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have deep respect for the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. He said earlier this afternoon that President
Roosevelt made a promise. I can tell my colleagues I had my staff go to
the Roosevelt Library. We didn't just leave it up to the study done by
the Senate. We can find no promise--no promise by President Roosevelt,
no promise by General MacArthur, no promise by individuals who were
intricately involved in the commitments at the end of the Second World
War in the Pacific. In fact, we did take care of those Filipinos who
served as scouts for the U.S. services, and they got full VA benefits.
What we are talking about--and this is not the purpose of this
discussion--is a continuation, an addition to the Filipino equity fund.
Two years ago we passed legislation creating that fund. We appropriated
$198 million, and we allowed 1 year from the enactment for any Filipino
who wanted to claim to, in fact, put in an application. That deadline
was February 16. At the end of December, my staff talked to the VA, and
they had obligated under $100 million.
The legislation at the time required the Secretary of the VA to
submit in the President's budget this year a detailed report of the
number of applications and, more importantly, a breakdown of how much
money and to whom it went. That was not supplied in the President's
submission to Congress.
[[Page S4503]]
When the President's budget came, the President's budget said they
needed $188 million, $10 million short of the $198 million we had
already appropriated. Now out of the clear blue sky, Secretary Shinseki
sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee chairman and said: We
need another $67 million. Well, the deadline was February 16, before
the President's budget was constructed. There was no explanation as to
what it is going to be used for and no understanding of to whom this
money goes.
I want my colleagues to listen. What my amendment does is strike this
from the bill. What Senator Inouye's amendment does is give the
Secretary the option to leave the money where it is or to divert the
money to the Philippine equity fund. I will assure my colleagues the
Secretary will divert it. Where does it come from? It comes from
already appropriated money that is in the construction fund at the VA
for hospitals, for outpatient clinics, for national cemeteries, and for
the maintenance of the facilities for our veterans.
This is wrong. If there is an obligation we have to keep, it is to
our veterans--ones who rely on the best facilities to deliver care to
them.
Once again, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Inouye amendment
and vote for the Burr amendment.
I thank the Chair.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the Inouye amendment No. 4299.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln)
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison),
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 35, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--35
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--5
Chambliss
Hutchison
Lincoln
McCaskill
Vitter
The amendment (No. 4299) was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 4273
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 4273.
The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln)
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter),
and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]
YEAS--37
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Voinovich
Wicker
NAYS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Chambliss
Hutchison
Lincoln
McCaskill
Vitter
The amendment (No. 4273) was rejected.
Amendment No. 4184, As Modified, and Amendment No. 4213, as modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous
order be modified to provide that amendments Nos. 4184, as modified,
and 4213 as modified not be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, all remaining pending amendments to the
substitute are withdrawn, except amendments 4184, as modified, and
4213, as modified, offered by the Senator from Louisiana.
The Senator from Hawaii.
Amendments Nos. 4178, 4205, 4217, 4222, 4224, 4245, 4246, 4249, 4260,
4280, 4184, as Further Modified, 4259, 4255, 4248, 4200, 4213, as
Modified, 4251, as Further Modified, and 4287, as Modified
Mr. INOUYE. Pursuant to the order, I call up the managers' package,
which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the managers'
package is considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider is
considered made and laid upon the table.
The amendments were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 4178
(Purpose: To facilitate a transmission line project)
On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
right-of-way
Sec. __. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of the Interior shall--
(1) not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, amend Right-of-Way Grants No. NVN-49781/IDI-26446/
NVN-85211/NVN-85210 of the Bureau of Land Management to shift
the 200-foot right-of-way for the 500-kilovolt transmission
line project to the alignment depicted on the maps entitled
``Southwest Intertie Project'' and dated December 10, 2009,
and May 21, 2010, and approve the construction, operation and
maintenance plans of the project; and
(2) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, issue a notice to proceed with construction of the
project in accordance with the amended grants and approved
plans described in paragraph (1).
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Energy may provide or facilitate federal
financing for the project described in subsection (a) under
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115) or the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(42 U.S.C. 15801 et seq.), based on the comprehensive reviews
and consultations performed by the Secretary of the Interior.
amendment no. 4205
(Purpose: To make a technical correction)
On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
Sec. 3008. Of the amounts appropriated for the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program under subpart
1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) under the
heading ``state and local law enforcement assistance'' under
the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' under the heading
``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities'' under title II
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8;
123 Stat. 579), at the discretion
[[Page S4504]]
of the Attorney General, the amounts to be made available to
Genesee County, Michigan for assistance for individuals
transitioning from prison in Genesee County, Michigan
pursuant to the joint statement of managers accompanying that
Act may be made available to My Brother's Keeper of Genesee
County, Michigan to provide assistance for individuals
transitioning from prison in Genesee County, Michigan.
amendment no. 4217
(Purpose: To provide for the submittal of the charter and reports on
the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group to additional committees of
Congress)
On page 26, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(d) Submittal of Charter and Reports to Additional
Committees of Congress.--At the same time the Director of
National Intelligence submits the charter and procedures
referred to in subsection (a), any modification or revision
to the charter or procedures under subsection (b), and any
report under subsection (c) to the congressional intelligence
committees, the Director shall also submit such matter to--
(1) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of
the Senate; and
(2) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security,
the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the House of
Representatives.
AMENDMENT NO. 4222
(Purpose: To limit the use of funds for the Department of Veterans
Affairs for the presumption of service-connection between exposure of
veterans to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam and certain
additional diseases until the period for disapproval by Congress of the
regulation establishing such presumption has expired)
At the end of chapter 9 of title I, add the following:
limitation on use of funds available to the department of veterans
affairs
Sec. 902. The amount made available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs by this chapter under the heading ``Veterans
Benefits Administration'' under the heading ``compensation
and pensions'' may not be obligated or expended until the
expiration of the period for Congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred
to as the ``Congressional Review Act''), of the regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to
section 1116 of title 38, United States Code, to establish a
service connection between exposure of veterans to Agent
Orange during service in the Republic of Vietnam during the
Vietnam era and hairy cell leukemia and other chronic B cell
leukemias, Parkinson's disease, and ischemic heart disease.
AMENDMENT NO. 4224
(Purpose: To make a technical correction related to Amtrak security in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010)
On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
Sec. 3008. Section 159(b)(2)(C) of title I of division A
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (49 U.S.C. 24305
note) is amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and
inserting the following:
``(i) requiring inspections of any container containing a
firearm or ammunition; and
``(ii) the temporary suspension of firearm carriage service
if credible intelligence information indicates a threat
related to the national rail system or specific routes or
trains.''.
amendment no. 4245
(Purpose: To add a provision relating to commitments of resources by
foreign governments)
On page 58, line 19, after the period insert the following:
(c) Of the funds appropriated in this chapter and in prior
acts making appropriations for the Department of State,
foreign operations, and related programs under the headings
``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' and ``Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance'' for Afghanistan, Pakistan and
Iraq, up to $300,000,000 may, after consultation with the
Committees on Appropriations, be transferred between, and
merged with, such appropriations for activities related to
security for civilian led operations in such countries.
AMENDMENT NO. 4246
(Purpose: To strike a technical clarification)
On page 69, strike lines 4 through 8.
AMENDMENT NO. 4249
(Purpose: To modify a condition on the availability for funds to
support the work of the Independent Electoral Commission and the
Electoral Complaints Commission in Afghanistan)
On page 55, line 20, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through ``such commissions; and'' and insert the following:
``has no members or other employees who participated in, or
helped to cover up, acts of fraud in the 2009 elections for
president in Afghanistan, and the Electoral Complaints
Commission is a genuinely independent body with all the
authorities that were invested in it under Afghanistan law as
of December 31, 2009, and with no members appointed by the
President of Afghanistan; and''.
AMENDMENT NO. 4260
(Purpose: To clarify that non-military projects in the former Soviet
Union for which funding is authorized by this Act for the purpose of
engaging scientists and engineers shall be executed through existing
science and technology centers)
Beginning on page 66, line 24, strike ``activities'' and
all that follows through ``notwithstanding'' on page 67, line
2, and insert ``projects that engage scientists and engineers
who have no weapons background, but whose competence could
otherwise be applied to weapons development, provided such
projects are executed through existing science and technology
centers and notwithstanding''.
amendment no. 4280
(Purpose: To require the Administrator of General Services to make
publicly available the contractor integrity and performance database
established under the Clean Contracting Act of 2008)
On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
public availability of contractor integrity and performance database
Sec. 3008. Section 872(e)(1) of the Clean Contracting Act
of 2008 (subtitle G of title VIII of Public Law 110-417; 41
U.S.C. 417b(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``In addition, the Administrator shall post all
such information, excluding past performance reviews, on a
publicly available Internet website.''.
amendment no. 4184, as further modified
(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to maximize the
placement of dredged material available from maintenance dredging of
existing navigation channels to mitigate the impacts of the Deepwater
Horizon Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico at full Federal expense)
On page 30, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
Sec. 4__. (a) The Secretary of the Army may use funds made
available under the heading ``operation and maintenance'' of
this chapter to place, at full Federal expense, dredged
material available from maintenance dredging of existing
Federal navigation channels located in the Gulf Coast Region
to mitigate the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill in
the Gulf of Mexico.
(b) The Secretary of the Army shall coordinate the
placement of dredged material with appropriate Federal and
Gulf Coast State agencies.
(c) The placement of dredged material pursuant to this
section shall not be subject to a least-cost-disposal
analysis or to the development of a Chief of Engineers
report.
(d) Nothing in this section shall affect the ability or
authority of the Federal Government to recover costs from an
entity determined to be a responsible party in connection
with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill pursuant to the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 or any other applicable Federal statute
for actions undertaken pursuant to this seciton.
amendment no. 4259
(Purpose: To require assessments on the detainees at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)
On page 81, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
assessments on guantanamo bay detainees
Sec. 3008. (a) Submission of Information Related to
Disposition Decisions.--Not later than 45 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National
Intelligence, in coordination with the participants of the
interagency review of Guantanamo Bay detainees conducted
pursuant to Executive Order 13492 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), shall
fully inform the congressional intelligence committees
concerning the basis for the disposition decisions reached by
the Guantanamo Review Task Force, and shall provide to the
congressional intelligence committees--
(1) the written threat analyses prepared on each detainee
by the Guantanamo Review Task Force established pursuant to
Executive Order 13492; and
(2) access to the intelligence information that formed the
basis of any such specific assessments or threat analyses.
(b) Future Submissions.--In addition to the analyses,
assessments, and information required under subsection (a)
and not later than 10 days after the date that a threat
assessment described in subsection (a) is disseminated, the
Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the
congressional intelligence committees--
(1) any new threat assessment prepared by any element of
the intelligence community of a Guantanamo Bay detainee who
remains in detention or is pending release or transfer; and
(2) access to the intelligence information that formed the
basis of such threat assessment.
(c) Congressional Intelligence Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``congressional intelligence committees''
has the meaning given that term in section 3(7) of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(7)).
amendment no. 4255
(Purpose: To make a technical correction)
On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
Sec. 3009. Of the amounts appropriated for the Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program under subpart
1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) under the
heading ``state and local law enforcement assistance'' under
the
[[Page S4505]]
heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' under the heading
``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities'' under title II
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8;
123 Stat. 579), at the discretion of the Attorney General,
the amounts to be made available to the Marcus Institute,
Atlanta, Georgia, to provide remediation for the potential
consequences of childhood abuse and neglect, pursuant to the
joint statement of managers accompanying that Act, may be
made available to the Georgia State University Center for
Healthy Development, Atlanta, Georgia.
amendment no. 4248
(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of State to award task orders for
police training in Afghanistan under current Department of State
contracts for police training)
On page 56, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
(g)(1) Notwithstanding section 303 of the Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) and
requirements for awarding task orders under task and delivery
order contracts under section 303J of such Act (41 U.S.C.
253j), the Secretary of State may award task orders for
police training in Afghanistan under current Department of
State contracts for police training.
(2) Any task order awarded under paragraph (1) shall be for
a limited term and shall remain in performance only until a
successor contract or contracts awarded by the Department of
Defense using full and open competition have entered into
full performance after completion of any start-up or
transition periods.
amendment no. 4200
(Purpose: To make a technical correction)
On page 34, line 5, strike ``prior'' and all through page
34, line 7, and insert the following: appropriations made
available in Public Law 111-83 to the ``Office of the Federal
Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding'', $700,000 are
rescinded.
amendment no. 4213, as modified
(Purpose: To provide authority to the Secretary of the Interior to
immediately fund projects under the Coastal Impact Assistance Program
on an emergency basis)
On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
SEC. 30__. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE.
Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1356a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Emergency Funding.--
``(1) In general.--In response to a spill of national
significance under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2701 et seq.), at the request of a producing State or coastal
political subdivision and notwithstanding the requirements of
part 12 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or a
successor regulation), the Secretary may immediately disburse
funds allocated under this section for 1 or more individual
projects that are--
``(A) consistent with subsection (d); and
``(B) specifically designed to respond to the spill of
national significance.
``(2) Approval by secretary.--The Secretary may, in the
sole discretion of the Secretary, approve, on a project by
project basis, the immediate disbursal of the funds under
paragraph (1).
``(3) State requirements.--
``(A) Additional information.--If the Secretary approves a
project for funding under this subsection that is included in
a plan previously approved under subsection (c), not later
than 90 days after the date of the funding approval, the
producing State or coastal political subdivision shall submit
to the Secretary any additional information that the
Secretary determines to be necessary to ensure that the
project is in compliance with subsection (d).
``(B) Amendment to plan.--If the Secretary approves a
project for funding under this subsection that is not
included in a plan previously approved under subsection (c),
not later than 90 days after the date of the funding
approval, the producing State or coastal political
subdivision shall submit to the Secretary for approval an
amendment to the plan that includes any projects funded under
paragraph (1), as well as any information about such projects
that the Secretary determines to be necessary to ensure that
the project is in compliance with subsection (d).
``(C) Limitation.--If a producing State or coastal
political subdivision does not submit the additional
information or amendments to the plan required by this
paragraph, or if, based on the information submitted by the
Secretary determines that the project is not in compliance
with subsection (d), by the deadlines specified in this
paragraph, the Secretary shall not disburse any additional
funds to the producing State or the coastal political
subdivisions until the date on which the additional
information or amendment to the plan has been approved by the
Secretary.''.
amendment no. 4251, as further modified
(Purpose: To provide funds for drought relief, with an offset)
On page 71, line 21, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert
``$25,000,000''.
On page 28, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.
For an additional amount for ``Water and Related
Resources'', $10,000,000, for drought emergency assistance:
Provided, That financial assistance may be provided under the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43
U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) and any other applicable Federal law
(including regulations) for the optimization and conservation
of project water supplies to assist drought-plagued areas of
the West:
amendment no. 4287, as modified
(Purpose: To provide fisheries disaster relief, conduct a study on
ecosystem services, and conduct an enhanced stock assessment for Gulf
of Mexico fisheries impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil discharge)
On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
funding for environmental and fisheries impacts
Sec. 2002.
(1) Fisheries disaster relief.--For an additional amount,
in addition to other amounts provided in this Act for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $15,000,000
to be available to provide fisheries disaster relief under
section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a) related to a commercial
fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster in the
Gulf of Mexico that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon oil
discharge.
(2) Expanded stock assessment of fisheries.--For an
additional amount, in addition to other amounts provided in
this Act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, $10,000,000 to conduct an expanded stock
assessment of the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico. Such
expanded stock assessment shall include an assessment of the
commercial and recreational catch and biological sampling,
observer programs, data management and processing activities,
the conduct of assessments, and follow-up evaluations of such
fisheries.
(3) Ecosystem services impacts study.--For an additional
amount, in addition to other amounts provided for the
Department of Commerce, $1,000,000 to be available for the
National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the long-
term ecosystem service impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil
discharge. Such study shall assess long-term costs to the
public of lost water filtration, hunting, and fishing
(commercial and recreational), and other ecosystem services
associated with the Gulf of Mexico.
In General.--Of the amounts appropriated or made available
under Division B, Title I of Public Law 111-117 that remain
unobligated as of the date of the enactment of this Act under
Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $26,000,000 of the
amounts appropriated are hereby rescinded.
CDBG and EDA Funding
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
chairman, Mr. Inouye, and vice chairman, Mr. Cochran, of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, as well as my colleague from Tennessee, Mr.
Alexander.
I want to thank my colleagues who have recognized the needs of Rhode
Island, which is struggling to overcome the effects of the worst
flooding in centuries in midst of the worst economic environment in
generations. Indeed, Rhode Island was among the first States to sink
into recession. In the last 2 years it has consistently ranked among
the top three States in unemployment, with as much as 13 percent of the
workforce without jobs. As my colleagues know, Rhode Island has been
fortunate for many decades until now to have avoided the kind of major
natural disaster damage that has affected so many other States. When
those disasters have occurred in other States, there has been no
question about the support of the people of Rhode Island or our State's
congressional delegation for Federal disaster assistance. I am grateful
that in the midst of challenging fiscal environment that the committee,
on a bipartisan basis has included assistance for flood-impacted
States, specifically Rhode Island and Tennessee. I am particularly
grateful for the inclusion of additional community development block
grant, CDBG, and economic development assistance, EDA, grant funding,
along with a reduction of the non-Federal cost share for FEMA
assistance. I also appreciate the challenge of including this funding
while trying to stay within the President's top-line request for
emergency funding. In the past, the committee has had greater
flexibility in responding to emergencies, including in 2008 when over
$20 billion was provided to States with major disasters in that year.
Given the comparatively limited funding available, I would like to ask
the chairman and vice chairman to help clarify the intent of the
funding included in the underlying bill, specifically that the intent
with respect tothe CDBG and EDA funding provided in the bill is to
assist hard-hit communities in Rhode Island and Tennessee. I would
[[Page S4506]]
ask my colleagues for their support in maintaining this position in
negotiations with the House on the final package.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island is correct
about the intent of the funding provided here. As the Senator knows,
the Appropriations Committee's capacity to provide additional funding
for disaster recovery is constrained by the President's top-line number
for emergency supplemental appropriations. Given the relatively modest
funding available in comparison to previous disaster supplemental
appropriations bills, the intent is to focus CDBG and EDA assistance on
Rhode Island and Tennessee, where the underlying economic need is
greatest. We will work to clarify and maintain that position during
conference with the House.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I concur with the chairman. The scale of
need in both States is significant. While I know the committee would
have liked to accommodate a greater amount of funding for Tennessee and
Rhode Island, as well as other States, the need to stay within the top-
line number in the administration's request has limited the amount of
funding available. Given the limited funding available, it is
appropriate to focus on States where the underlying economic need is
greatest, and I will work to maintain the position described by the
chairman.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the vice
chairman for their comments and their work on this bill, particularly
the assistance they have worked to provide to my state. As my
colleagues know, the amount of property damage in Tennessee may be more
than $10 billion and is the worst natural disaster since President
Obama has been in office. While the funding in this bill is important
and significant for Tennessee and Rhode Island, it represents only the
beginning of what is needed in my state, and I ask for the chairman and
vice chairman's continuing support for additional funding for recovery
efforts in Tennessee.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his
comments, and we will continue to work with him and the Senator from
Rhode Island to help address the needs of their States.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and vice chairman
for their commitment and the assistance they have already extended to
my State in this bill.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank also my colleagues for their
assistance and look forward to working with them to secure passage of
this important bill.
amendment no. 4251, as modified
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my as
modified amendment No. 4251 to printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 27, line 7, strike ``$173,000,000'' and insert
``$163,000,000''.
On page 28, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
SEC. 4__. EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.
For an additional amount for ``Water and Related
Resources'', $9,000,000, for drought emergency assistance:
Provided, That financial assistance may be provided under the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43
U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) and any other applicable Federal law
(including regulations) for the optimization and conservation
of project water supplies to assist drought-plagued areas of
the West:
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, amendment No. 4245 to H.R. 4899, the fiscal
year 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, provides the Department of
State with authority to transfer up to $300,000,000 between the
``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' and ``Embassy Security,
Construction, and Maintenance'' accounts in chapter 10 of the bill, to
respond to potential increases in the cost of security for civilian
personnel. This authority is not intended to be used to support site
development or construction of permanent consulates or other such
facilities.
Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a heinous crime that
occurred in El Salvador that has yet to be solved. On June 18, 2009,
Gustavo Marcelo Rivera, an activist and community leader from the city
of San Isidro, Cabaas, was kidnapped. His tortured remains were found
on July 1 at the bottom of a dry well in the village of Agua Zarca. The
cause of death apparently was asphyxiation, and evidence reportedly
indicated that his kidnappers may have kept him alive for several days
before murdering him.
It is my understanding that four suspects, gang members, have been
identified by the Attorney General's office as key suspects in the
crime. Apparently, the prosecutor's hypothesis is that Mr. Rivera was
with these gang members and was killed after a heated argument; in
other words, that his death was a common crime, not a political
assassination.
There is reason to suspect otherwise. Mr. Rivera was a well known
community leader. He was the founder and director of the Casa de la
Cultura in San Isidro, a member of the departmental board of the FMLN
party, and the director of the Association of Friends of San Isidro
Cabaas. He had been a defender of the environment, and he was outspoken
in his opposition to industrial mining by the Canadian mining company
Pacific Rim in San Isidro. In addition, I am informed that during the
January 2009 municipal elections, Mr. Rivera and other leaders
denounced suspected electoral fraud in his municipality. As a result of
his activism, Mr. Rivera was the target of threats and accusations and
someone reportedly tried to run over him with a car. In addition, the
brutal manner in which he was tortured and killed suggests that this
was a premeditated crime that may have been intended as a warning to
other community activists.
Crimes like this are all too common in El Salvador today, and they
concern not only the Salvadoran people but those of us who follow
developments in that country. Rarely are competent investigations
performed, and almost never is anyone convicted and punished. Impunity
is the norm.
I urge the Attorney General to conduct a thorough, transparent, and
credible investigation to ensure that not only those who tortured and
killed Mr. Rivera are brought to justice, but anyone who may have
ordered such a heinous crime is also prosecuted and punished. Democracy
is fragile in El Salvador and it cannot survive without a functioning
justice system and responsible judicial authorities who have the
people's confidence.
I have strongly supported assistance for El Salvador. In the
supplemental appropriations bill we have been debating this week, I
included $25,000,000 for El Salvador to help rebuild schools, roads,
and other infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed during Hurricane
Ida last November. Some 150 Salvadorans lost their lives in that
disaster. Those funds were not requested by the President in the
supplemental bill. I included them because I felt we should help El
Salvador rebuild.
But I also feel strongly about justice in El Salvador, whose people
suffered from years of civil war during the 1980s. Human rights
defenders, journalists, and community activists are increasingly
threatened and killed. How the Rivera case is resolved will be a
measure of whether the Government of El Salvador is serious about
defending the rights of its citizens who courageously speak out against
injustice, and upholding the rule of law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
is yielded back.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, is
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
committee amendment, as amended, and third reading of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended,
pass?
Mr. INOUYE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln)
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
[[Page S4507]]
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter),
and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]
YEAS--67
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
NAYS--28
Barrasso
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
McCain
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Voinovich
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Chambliss
Hutchison
Lincoln
McCaskill
Vitter
The bill (H.R. 4899), as amended, was passed.
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the title amendment is
agreed to.
Under the previous order, the Senate insists on its amendments,
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses, and the Chair appoints the following conferees.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Warner) appointed Mr. Inouye, Mr. Byrd,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Tester, Mr. Specter,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
Bennett, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Voinovich, and Ms. Murkowski conferees on the part of the Senate.
____________________