[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 9, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4746-S4752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Brown of Massachusetts):
S. 3465. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 15 South Main Street in Sharon, Massachusetts, as
the ``Michael C. Rothberg Post Office''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Government Affairs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation to
designate the United States Postal Service in Sharon, Massachusetts, as
the Michael C. Rothberg Post Office.
Michael Craig Rothberg was born and raised in Sharon. Upon graduation
from Sharon High School, Michael earned both undergraduate and master's
degree in math and computer science from McGill University in Montreal.
Unfortunately, Michael Rothberg's life was tragically cut short on the
morning of September 11, 2001, at age 39, while working in his Cantor
Fitzgerald office on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center.
During his lifetime, Michael Rothberg created much more than a
successful professional life. He used his resources generously
contributing not only financial support, but also his time and energy
for causes he believed in. He worked hard for causes such as the Dana
Farber Cancer Institute's Jimmy Fund, the Multiple Sclerosis
Foundation, and Mutual Funds against Cancer. His spirit is remembered
through many contributions to the Town of Sharon through the Michael C.
Rothberg Memorial Scholarship and other notable charitable
contributions to students, athletes and the community of Sharon,
Massachusetts.
The people of Sharon, Massachusetts are very proud of Michael and the
example he set. It is fitting then that when people go to or pass by
the post office in Sharon, they will be reminded of a local man who
understood how important it is to give back to causes that touch your
heart.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 3466. A bill to require restitution for victims of criminal
violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I introduce the Environmental Crimes
Enforcement Act, ECEA, common sense legislation that will ensure that
those who destroy the lives and livelihoods of Americans through
environmental crime are held accountable.
It has been 50 days since the collapse of British Petroleum's
Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, which killed 11 men. Oil continues to gush
into the Gulf of Mexico, and deadly contaminants are washing up on the
shores and wetlands of Gulf Coast States. This catastrophe threatens
the livelihood of many thousands of people throughout the region, as
well as precious natural resources and habitats. The people responsible
for this catastrophe must be held accountable; they, not the American
taxpayers, should pay for the damage and the recovery. The bill I
introduce today aims to deter environmental crime, protect and
compensate its victims, and encourage accountability among corporate
actors.
First, ECEA will deter schemes by Big Oil and other corporations and
industries that damage our environment and hurt hardworking Americans
by increasing sentences for environmental crimes. All too often,
corporations treat fines and monetary penalties as merely a cost of
doing business to be factored against profits. To deter criminal
behavior by corporations, it is important to have laws resulting in
prison time. In that light, this bill directs the United States
Sentencing Commission to amend the sentencing guidelines for
environmental crimes to reflect the seriousness of these crimes.
Criminal penalties for Clean Water Act violations are not as severe
as for other white-collar crimes, despite the widespread harm such
crimes can cause. As the current crisis makes clear, Clean Water Act
offenses can have serious consequences on people's lives and
livelihoods, which should be reflected in the sentences given to the
criminals who commit them. This bill takes a reasonable approach,
asking the Sentencing Commission to study the issue and raise
sentencing guidelines appropriately, and it will have a real deterrent
effect.
This bill also aims to help victims of environmental crime--the
people who lose their livelihoods, their communities, and even their
loved ones--reclaim their natural and economic resources. To do that,
ECEA makes restitution mandatory for criminal Clean Water Act
violations.
Currently, restitution in environmental crimes--even crimes that
result in death--is discretionary, and only available under limited
circumstances. Under this bill, those who commit Clean Water Act
offenses would have to compensate the victims of these offense for
their losses. That restitution will help the people of the Gulf Coast
rebuild their coastline and wetlands, their fisheries, and their
livelihoods should criminal liability be found.
Importantly, this bill will allow the families of those killed to be
compensated for criminal wrongdoing. As we have seen in the BP case,
arbitrary laws prevent those killed in tragedies like this one from
bringing civil lawsuits for compensation. This bill would ensure that,
when a crime is committed, the criminal justice system can provide for
restitution to victims, providing some small measure of security for
the families of those killed.
This bill takes two common sense steps--well-reasoned increases in
sentences and mandatory restitution for environmental crime. These
measures are tough, but fair. They are important steps toward deterring
criminal conduct that can cause environmental and economic disaster and
toward helping those who have suffered so much from the wrongdoing of
Big Oil and other large corporations. I hope all Senators will join me
in supporting this important reform.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S4747]]
S. 3466
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Environmental Crimes
Enforcement Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES.
(a) Sentencing Guidelines.--
(1) Directive.--Pursuant to its authority under section 994
of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this
subsection, the United States Sentencing Commission shall
review and amend the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy
statements applicable to persons convicted of offenses under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), in order to reflect the intent of Congress that
penalties for the offenses be increased in comparison to
those provided on the date of enactment of this Act under the
guidelines and policy statements, and appropriately account
for the actual harm to the public and the environment from
the offenses.
(2) Requirements.--In amending the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines and policy statements under paragraph (1), the
United States Sentencing Commission shall--
(A) ensure that the guidelines and policy statements,
including section 2Q1.2 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines
(and any successor thereto), reflect--
(i) the serious nature of the offenses described in
paragraph (1);
(ii) the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate
punishment to prevent the offenses; and
(iii) the effectiveness of incarceration in furthering the
objectives described in clauses (i) and (ii);
(B) consider the extent to which the guidelines
appropriately account for the actual harm to public and the
environment resulting from the offenses;
(C) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and guidelines and Federal statutes;
(D) make any necessary conforming changes to guidelines;
and
(E) ensure that the guidelines relating to offenses under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.) adequately meet the purposes of sentencing, as set
forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code.
(b) Restitution.--Section 3663A(c)(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in clause (iii), by striking ``and'' at the end and
inserting ``or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(iv) an offense under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.); and''.
______
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself and Mr. Corker):
S. 3470. A bill to designate as wilderness certain public land in the
Cherokee National Forest in the State of Tennessee, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Corker and myself,
I rise to introduce the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2010. The
legislation will implement an important next step in conservation for
some of the wildest, most beautiful and pristine areas in east
Tennessee near where I live. To say that these are among the wildest,
most pristine and beautiful areas sets a very high bar since the region
is home to the Appalachian Mountains, and our Nation's most visited
national park, a World Heritage site--in fact, one of the most visited
sites in the world--the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, much of
which is managed as if it were a wilderness area.
From growing up in these mountains and my many years of hiking the
quiet trails of the Cherokee National Forest, I can attest that the
wilderness areas we protected there are something very special.
Congress began protecting wilderness areas in the Cherokee National
Forest in 1975, with additional wilderness areas being established by
the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 1984 and the Tennessee Wilderness Act
of 1986. I was Governor of Tennessee during that time. I remember
testifying on behalf of and strongly supporting our congressional
delegation as we did that. I know sometimes our western friends are
surprised to see Tennessee Republicans advocating wilderness, bragging
about the fact that the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is managed
in large extent as if it were a wilderness area and adding certain
sections of the Cherokee National Forest to wilderness.
The Federal Government doesn't own very much of our land, but we have
lots of visitors. Two or three times as many people visited the Great
Smokies as visit Yellowstone. We have lots of visitors but very little
Federal land. We like to protect it. We like to have clean air. We like
to enjoy it ourselves.
We like the Cherokee National Forest because it gives us an
opportunity to do some things we can't do in the national park. We can
hunt, fish, ride horses, camp, do things in a great many ways. I
believe this legislation, the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 2010, will
create for Tennessee families and especially Tennessee youngsters, who
need to be outdoors and away from the computer screens and television
screens, an even more attractive opportunity to enjoy this beautiful
part of our natural heritage.
I emphasize that the lands that will be designated as wilderness by
this legislation are already Federal lands. They are part of the
Cherokee National Forest. The areas covered were recommended for
wilderness by the U.S. Forest Service in the development of its
comprehensive 2004 forest plan which included extensive opportunities
for public comment. Those areas have been managed as if they were
wilderness areas since that time.
This new bill will officially designate as wilderness nearly 20,000
acres as recommended by the Forest Service. The bill establishes one
new wilderness area, the 9,038 acre Upper Bald River Wilderness in
Monroe County. This new area complements the existing Bald River Gorge
Wilderness. It lies just south of that existing area, separated only by
the Bald River Road, which will, of course, remain an open public road.
By protecting the Upper Bald River Wilderness as well as the existing
wilderness area, we will be protecting most of the Bald River
watershed. Excellent trails traverse the Upper Bald River area,
including the Benton MacKaye Trail, offering excellent hiking,
backpacking, and horseback riding, as well as access for hunters and
fishermen.
The rest of the lands designated as wilderness in this legislation
are relatively small but important additions to some of the areas
Congress established in 1975, 1984 and 1986. They have the effect of
better protecting not only ecosystems and watersheds but also the
diverse recreational value of these areas.
At the southern end of the Cherokee National Forest is one of the
largest national forest wilderness complexes in the Southeastern United
States. It comprises the Cohutta Wilderness, most of which lies in
Georgia, and the Big Frog Wilderness in Polk County, TN. The new
legislation makes a small but important addition of 348 acres to the
Big Frog Wilderness. The Big Frog-Cohutta combination, with adjacent
primitive areas, creates the largest track of wilderness on national
forest lands in the Eastern United States.
In the same way, the new legislation makes two small but important
additions to the Little Frog Mountain Wilderness, also in Polk County.
These additions, totaling 966 acres, were recommended by the Forest
Service to give more logical boundaries to the Little Frog Mountain
Wilderness and protect the corridor for the Benton MacKaye Trail.
In upper east Tennessee, in Unicoi and Washington Counties, this new
legislation would add 2,922 acres to the Sampson Mountain Wilderness.
This is at the heart of a marvelous scenic region of our State. Along
these scenic trails, visitors can see flame azalea, mountain laurel,
rhododendron, trailing arbutus, crested dwarf iris, mayapple,
bloodroot, toothwort, magnolia, dogwood, redbud, and many other
flowering plants, shrubs, and trees. The last 2 or 3 months have been
the time of year to visit that area with its many species of shrubs and
trees.
The 1986 Tennessee Wilderness Act established the Big Laurel Branch
Wilderness in Carter and Johnson Counties at the furthest upper east
Tennessee end of our State. The new legislation proposes to add 4,446
acres, including some 4.5 miles of the Appalachian National Scenic
Trail. The addition lies along the slopes of Iron Mountain just north
of Watauga Lake, one of the cleanest lakes in America.
The final element of the new legislation is an important addition to
the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Wilderness. Here visitors will find perhaps
the most impressive stands of virgin eastern forest in the United
States. The 1,836-acre addition includes remnant old-growth forest. The
Benton MacKaye Trail passes through this area, making it a
[[Page S4748]]
popular destination for horseback riders and hikers.
This is a simple bill, but it will make a significant contribution
for these wild and pristine areas of the Cherokee National Forest.
I thank and salute the Cherokee National Forest staff and the many
citizens of Tennessee who worked to define these proposals and to build
grassroots support. These proposals have broad support from outdoors
clubs, trail maintenance groups, local businesses, and conservation
organizations.
I specifically want to thank Will Skelton, a Knoxville lawyer who has
been instrumental in conservation for decades in Tennessee. No one has
done more to help more families appreciate, enjoy, and hike in the
Cherokee National Forest than has Will Skelton. I thank the Tennessee
Wild group for their role in this proposal.
Getting out in the woods and mountains of east Tennessee is an ever
more popular activity. People go to the wilderness to experience nature
most wild, walking a trail to some resting place where the noises are
trees creaking, the smells are of wet moss and leaves, the colors are
pure, and the world is at peace. That is why these protected wilderness
areas have such immense value for our people, and it is why the value
will multiply many times as our world grows more crowded.
The foundational statute under which we protect the wilderness areas
is the 1964 Wilderness Act. The Congress of that time showed
extraordinary prescience about the threats that destroy wilderness:
In order to assure that an increasing population,
accompanied by expanding settlement and growing
mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas of the
United States and its possessions, leaving no lands
designated for preservation and protection in their natural
condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the
Congress to secure for the American people of present and
future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of
wilderness.
We need more opportunities for young Americans to get away from the
computer screens and into the American outdoors. Eastern Tennessee
provides a beautiful place to do that, and this act will provide more
opportunities for that as well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
support material be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 3470
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Tennessee Wilderness Act of
2010''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled
``Proposed Wilderness Areas and Additions-Cherokee National
Forest'' and dated January 20, 2010.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
Tennessee.
SEC. 3. ADDITIONS TO CHEROKEE NATIONAL FOREST.
(a) Designation of Wilderness.--In accordance with the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following
Federal lands in the Cherokee National Forest in the State of
Tennessee are designated as wilderness and as additions to
the National Wilderness Preservation System:
(1) Certain land comprising approximately 9,038 acres, as
generally depicted as the ``Upper Bald River Wilderness'' on
the Map and which shall be known as the ``Upper Bald River
Wilderness''.
(2) Certain land comprising approximately 348 acres, as
generally depicted as the ``Big Frog Addition'' on the Map
and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be considered
to be a part of, the Big Frog Wilderness.
(3) Certain land comprising approximately 630 acres, as
generally depicted as the ``Little Frog Mountain Addition
NW'' on the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall
be considered to be a part of, the Little Frog Mountain
Wilderness.
(4) Certain land comprising approximately 336 acres, as
generally depicted as the ``Little Frog Mountain Addition
NE'' on the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall
be considered to be a part of, the Little Frog Mountain
Wilderness.
(5) Certain land comprising approximately 2,922 acres, as
generally depicted as the ``Sampson Mountain Addition'' on
the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be
considered to be a part of, the Sampson Mountain Wilderness.
(6) Certain land comprising approximately 4,446 acres, as
generally depicted as the ``Big Laurel Branch Addition'' on
the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be
considered to be a part of, the Big Laurel Branch Wilderness.
(7) Certain land comprising approximately 1,836 acres, as
generally depicted as the ``Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock Addition''
on the Map and which shall be incorporated in, and shall be
considered to be a part of, the Joyce Kilmer-Slickrock
Wilderness.
(b) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--
(1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file maps and
legal descriptions of the wilderness areas designated by
subsection (a) with the appropriate committees of Congress.
(2) Public availability.--The maps and legal descriptions
filed under paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for
public inspection in the office of the Chief of the Forest
Service and the office of the Supervisor of the Cherokee
National Forest.
(3) Force of law.--The maps and legal descriptions filed
under paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this Act, except that the Secretary may
correct typographical errors in the maps and descriptions.
(c) Administration.--Subject to valid existing rights, the
Federal lands designated as wilderness by subsection (a)
shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance with the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), except that any
reference in that Act to the effective date of that Act shall
be deemed to be a reference to the date of the enactment of
this Act.
____
To Protect and To Preserve
[From the Chattanooga Times Free Press, Sept. 8, 2009]
(Editorial Board)
There seemingly are few exceptions to the paroxysms of
partisanship that have paralyzed the nation's capital lately,
but there is at last one issue of vital importance where
widespread agreement provides immeasurable benefit to the
nation. Even in the current political climate, usually
antagonistic members of Congress continue to provide broad
support for the federal wilderness program. Good for them.
Such bipartisan agreement has been the case since the
inception of the Wilderness Act, which was signed into law by
President Lyndon B. Johnson 45 years ago this month. At its
inception, the program protected 9 million acres in 54
wilderness areas. Today, there are more than 109 million
protected acres in 44 states. Expansion efforts, thank
goodness, continue unabated.
It is a matter of record that the valuable program has
grown continuously under both Democratic and Republican
administrations. President Ronald Reagan, a Republican,
signed more laws to increase wilderness property than any
other president, but Democrat occupants of the White House
have done their duty as well.
President Barack Obama is the latest to do so. In March, he
signed a bill that established 52 new wilderness areas and
that increased acreage at more than two dozen existing
wilderness areas. His signature added more than 2 million
acres to the protection program.
Every president since Mr. Johnson has now signed
legislation to expand wilderness areas. An examination of the
record, in fact, shows a steady increase over the years in
the number of protected acres regardless of who occupies the
White House or which party controls Congress. It's proof that
unanimity of purpose in politics is possible if not always
procurable.
There are now more than 800 wilderness areas in the United
States. They range in size from tiny--the five-acre Rocks and
Islands Wilderness in California--to the stagger-the-
imagination nine million acres in the Wrangeli-Saint Elias
Wilderness in Alaska. The latter state has the most protected
acreage with more than 57 million acres. Ohio, with 77 acres,
has the least.
Georgia and Tennessee are in the middle of the pack. The
former has nearly 500,000 protected wilderness acres and the
latter just over 66,000 acres. Those numbers are likely to
grow. Efforts to add acreage to protected wilderness areas
and to related areas such as the nearby Cherokee National
Forest, already the largest tract of public land in
Tennessee, are ongoing. All deserve widespread support.
By law, wilderness areas are protected and managed to
preserve their natural condition. Use of the land is severely
restricted, and properly so, to non-invasive activities such
as hiking, backpacking and horseback riding. That's
appropriate. Wilderness preservation and protection programs
help ensure that future generations can enjoy the nation's
patrimony. They also are powerful reminders that we all share
an obligation to preserve and to protect such singularly
American open spaces.
____
OP-ED--Skelton: New Areas Need Protection
[From the Knoxville News Sentinel, Oct. 24, 2009]
(By Will Skelton)
On Oct. 30, 1984, President Ronald Reagan signed into law a
landmark bill that protected many of the outstandingly scenic
portions of the southern Cherokee National Forest in
Tennessee from timber harvesting, mining and road building.
Thousands of Tennesseans and Americans have used and
enjoyed those areas protected as wilderness in 1984; without
that bill, many
[[Page S4749]]
such areas would have been clear cut and roads built through
them. The areas range from the lofty peaks of the Citico
Creek and Big Frog Wildernesses to the waterfalls of the Bald
River Wilderness and to the quieter streams of Little Frog
Mountain Wilderness.
The bill was called the Tennessee Wilderness Act of 1984
and was supported by then-governor Lamar Alexander, then-U.S.
representative John J. Duncan, and both of our senators,
Howard Baker and James Sasser. The bill protected 32,606
acres (out of a total of 640,000 acres in the Cherokee) in
areas known as Big Frog Mountain, Bald River Gorge, Citico
Creek, and Little Frog Mountain.
Such areas were designated as ``wilderness,'' the highest
form of protection for our federally owned public lands. It
protects forests ``in perpetuity'' from logging, mining and
road building while allowing for traditional activities like
hiking, hunting, horseback riding, fishing and camping.
Wilderness also protects wildlife habitat, ensures clean
water supplies, and sequesters carbon.
I was coordinator of the Cherokee National Forest
Wilderness Coalition that led the effort to have these areas
protected. I edited a guidebook to the Cherokee's trails that
was published by University of Tennessee Press (``Hiking
Guide to the Cherokee National Forest''), and to which
Alexander did the forward for both the first (1992) and
second (2005) editions.
It has been 25 years since any additional wilderness has
been protected in the Cherokee National Forest, in spite of
several qualified candidates. These areas include the
wonderful Upper Bald River and several additions to existing
wilderness areas. The U.S. Forest Service recommended
wilderness protection for most of these areas. However, its
recommendations can only become ``wilderness'' if Congress
approves under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
A newly formed coalition, Tennessee Wild (http://
tnwild.org/), is urging the protection of the additional
areas recommended by the forest service.
Several points are important to consider regarding this
current wilderness proposal:
1. The Cherokee National Forest consists of 640,000 acres,
roughly the same as the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
with 340,969 in the northern Cherokee and 298,998 in the
southern Cherokee. Only 66,389 acres or 10.37 percent of the
forest is designated as wilderness; the areas listed above
would add only 17,785 acres, so we are talking about a very
modest increase.
2. No land is to be acquired by the forest service, as the
land proposed for wilderness is already owned by the
government.
3. Pursuant to the forest service's current management
plan, the service's recommended areas are currently managed
as wilderness. So no additional management or change would be
required and, because of the nature of wilderness, its
management is extremely low cost.
4. No roads would be closed; nor would any facilities be
affected as a result of the forest service's recommendation.
5. Finally, and maybe most important, the areas recommended
for wilderness are the best unprotected scenic and natural
areas in the southern Cherokee National Forest.
We are hopeful that our current political leaders,
especially Rep. John J. Duncan Jr. and Sens. Alexander and
Bob Corker, will act to protect these additional areas. Let
the words of John Muir, featured recently in the Ken Burns'
PBS special on our national parks, inspire us to action:
``Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in
and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body
and soul.''
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 3473. A bill to amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize
advances from Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill; considered and passed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3473
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FOR
DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL.
Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C.
2752) is amended in the second sentence--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Coast Guard''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and (2) in the case of the discharge of oil that
began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and
sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater
Horizon, may, without further appropriation, obtain 1 or more
advances from the Fund as needed, up to a maximum of
$100,000,000 for each advance, with the total amount of all
advances not to exceed the amounts available under section
9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and within 7
days of each advance, shall notify Congress of the amount
advanced and the facts and circumstances necessitating the
advance''.
SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Carper, Mr. McCain, Mr. Gregg,
Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Bennet, and Mr.
Udall of Colorado):
S. 3474. A bill to provide an optional fast-track procedure the
President may use when submitting rescission requests, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator
from Delaware, Mr. Carper, and the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain,
and others in introducing the Reduce Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010,
a bill which effectively gives the President a line item veto to cancel
wasteful spending.
Based on President Obama's proposal, our measure would permit the
President to get expedited consideration in both the House and Senate
of a package of proposed spending cuts within larger spending bills
Congress sends to the President. The President would have 45 days from
when the initial spending measure was enacted to submit his proposed
cuts, and once that package of cuts is sent to the Hill, Congress would
have less than a month to act on them. Any savings produced if Congress
enacts these spending cut packages would go directly to reduce the
deficit.
Just a few weeks ago, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary
Committee's Constitution Subcommittee at which this proposal and
similar proposals were reviewed, and I am pleased to say that the
consensus of that hearing is that the bill we are introducing today is
clearly constitutional.
When he took office, President Obama was handed perhaps the worst
economic and fiscal mess facing any administration since Franklin
Roosevelt took office in 1933. The legacy President Obama inherited
poses a gigantic challenge.
There is no magic bullet that will solve all our budget problems.
Congress has to make some tough decisions, and there will be no
avoiding them if we are to get our fiscal house in order. But we can
take some steps that will help Congress make the right decisions, and
that can sustain the progress we make.
A line-item veto, properly structured and respectful of the
constitutionally central role Congress plays, as this legislation is,
can help us get back on track.
As I noted before, Mr. President, I am joined in this effort by a
number of colleagues, but most notably by Senator Carper and Senator
McCain. I have been privileged to work on a number of critical budget
reforms with Senator Carper. He has long been an advocate of this kind
of expedited rescission or line item veto authority, and was the lead
author of a similarly structured measure when he served in the other
body.
I have also been pleased to work with Senator McCain on budget
matters. He and I have worked together for the past two decades to
oppose wasteful earmark spending, and more recently I have been pleased
to work with him on line item veto proposals, including this one.
I also thank my colleague from Wisconsin, Congressman Paul Ryan, for
working with me on this issue for several years now. He and I belong to
different political parties, and differ on many issues. But we do share
at least two things in common--our hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin,
and an abiding respect for Wisconsin's tradition of fiscal
responsibility. Earlier this year, Congressman Ryan raised this issue
with President Obama at a meeting in Baltimore, and I thank him for his
efforts to advance this issue.
The bill we introduce today is a significant step forward in our
joint efforts to provide the President with the kind of authority
needed to cut wasteful spending. As I noted earlier, this legislation
is essentially the bill President Obama proposed just a few weeks ago.
It provides the President the ability to get quick and definitive
congressional action on cuts to individual programs in large spending
bills.
Currently, the President must choose between vetoing a bill in its
entirety,
[[Page S4750]]
or signing it and possibly enacting billions of dollars of wasteful
spending. With this bill, the President will have a third option--
signing a spending bill, but then submitting a package of proposed cuts
from that spending bill to Congress for quick review. The package of
cuts proposed by the President will get an up or down vote in the House
and, if it passes there, an up or down vote in the Senate.
Our line item veto bill covers earmark discretionary spending as well
as broader non-entitlement spending accounts. The measure excludes
entitlement spending and tax expenditures from the expedited rescission
approach. Spending done through entitlements and tax expenditures make
up an enormous amount of the total spending done by the Federal
Government. However, unlike the programmatic spending done in
discretionary programs, where cuts can be made by zeroing out or
reducing a number for a specific account, reducing spending in
entitlements or tax expenditures often requires a change in the
underlying policy. Indeed, Congress already has a fast-track procedure
designed specifically for considering legislation that reduces spending
done through entitlements and tax expenditures. It is called
reconciliation, and it was used effectively in the 1990s to reduce the
deficit.
As I mentioned, a key target of this new line item veto bill is the
unauthorized earmark spending that too often finds its way into large
appropriations bills. Earmark spending was what Congressman Ryan and I
targeted in our line item veto proposal, and it is the example every
line-item veto proponent cites when promoting their legislation.
When President Bush asked for this kind of authority, the examples he
gave when citing wasteful spending he wanted to target were
congressional earmarks. When Members of the House or Senate tout a new
line-item veto authority to go after government waste, the examples
they give are congressional earmarks. When editorial pages argue for a
new line-item veto, they, too, cite congressional earmarks as the
reason for granting the President this new authority.
Unauthorized congressional earmarks are a serious problem. We won't
solve our budget problems just by addressing earmarks, but if we are to
get our fiscal house in order, eliminating earmarks has to be part of
the solution. For all the lip service Congress pays to this issue,
there are still thousands of earmarked spending provisions enacted
every year. Just last year, the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2009 passed in March of 2009 contained more than 8,000 earmarks
costing $7 billion, and the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2010 passed in December of 2009 included nearly 5,000 earmarks,
costing $3.7 billion.
There is no excuse for a system that allows that kind of wasteful
spending year after year. And given the unwillingness of Congress to
discipline itself in this regard, it is appropriate to provide the
President some additional authority to seek an up or down vote in
Congress on proposed cuts in this area of spending.
This is not a cure-all. We will not balance the budget just by
passing a line item veto-like authority for the President. Nor will we
balance the budget just by eliminating wasteful earmark spending. But
we can make real progress in getting our fiscal house in order, and in
changing the culture of Washington which over the last 2 decades has
seen an explosion of spending done through unauthorized earmarks that
circumvent regular congressional review and the scrutiny of the
competitive grant process.
Like the measure Congressman Ryan and I introduced, under this
proposal, wasteful spending doesn't have anywhere to hide. It's out in
the open, so that both Congress and the President have a chance to get
rid of wasteful projects before they begin. The taxpayers--who pay the
price for these projects--deserve a process that shows some real fiscal
discipline, and that is what this legislation promotes.
President Obama recognizes the pernicious effect earmarks have on the
entire process. When he asked Congress to take the extraordinary step
of sending him a massive economic recovery package, he knew such a
large package of spending and tax cuts would naturally attract
earmarks. He also recognized that were earmarks to be added to the
bill, it would undermine his ability to get it enacted, so he rightly
insisted it be free of earmarks.
I am delighted he has stepped forward to propose a new line item
veto-like authority, and I am especially pleased to be introducing that
proposal with my colleagues today.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3474
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Reduce
Unnecessary Spending Act of 2010''.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to create an
optional fast-track procedure the President may use when
submitting rescission requests, which would lead to an up-or-
down vote by Congress on the President's package of
rescissions, without amendment.
SEC. 2. RESCISSIONS OF FUNDING.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking
part C and inserting the following:
``PART C--EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESCISSIONS
``SEC. 1021. APPLICABILITY AND DISCLAIMER.
``The rules, procedures, requirements, and definitions in
this part apply only to executive and legislative actions
explicitly taken under this part. They do not apply to
actions taken under part B or to other executive and
legislative actions not taken under this part.
``SEC. 1022. DEFINITIONS.
``In this part:
``(1) The terms `appropriations Act', `budget authority',
and `new budget authority' have the same meanings as in
section 3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
``(2) The terms `account', `` `current year' '', `CBO', and
`OMB' have the same meanings as in section 250 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 as
in effect on September 30, 2002.
``(3) The term `days of session' shall be calculated by
excluding weekends and national holidays. Any day during
which a chamber of Congress is not in session shall not be
counted as a day of session of that chamber. Any day during
which neither chamber is in session shall not be counted as a
day of session of Congress.
``(4) The term `entitlement law' means the statutory
mandate or requirement of the United States to incur a
financial obligation unless that obligation is explicitly
conditioned on the appropriation in subsequent legislation of
sufficient funds for that purpose, and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program.
``(5) The term `funding' refers to new budget authority and
obligation limits except to the extent that the funding is
provided for entitlement law.
``(6) The term `rescind' means to eliminate or reduce the
amount of enacted funding.
``(7) The terms `withhold' and `withholding' apply to any
executive action or inaction that precludes the obligation of
funding at a time when it would otherwise have been available
to an agency for obligation. The terms do not include
administrative or preparatory actions undertaken prior to
obligation in the normal course of implementing budget laws.
``SEC. 1023. TIMING AND PACKAGING OF RESCISSION REQUESTS.
``(a) Timing.--If the President proposes that Congress
rescind funding under the procedures in this part, OMB shall
transmit a message to Congress containing the information
specified in section 1024, and the message transmitting the
proposal shall be sent to Congress not later than 45 calendar
days after the date of enactment of the funding.
``(b) Packaging and Transmittal of Requested Rescissions.--
Except as provided in subsection (c), for each piece of
legislation that provides funding, the President shall
request at most 1 package of rescissions and the rescissions
in that package shall apply only to funding contained in that
legislation. OMB shall deliver each message requesting a
package of rescissions to the Secretary of the Senate if the
Senate is not in session and to the Clerk of the House of
Representatives if the House is not in session. OMB shall
make a copy of the transmittal message publicly available,
and shall publish in the Federal Register a notice of the
message and information on how it can be obtained.
``(c) Special Packaging Rules.--After enactment of--
``(1) a joint resolution making continuing appropriations;
``(2) a supplemental appropriations bill; or
``(3) an omnibus appropriations bill;
covering some or all of the activities customarily funded in
more than 1 regular appropriations bill, the President may
propose as many as 2 packages rescinding funding contained in
that legislation, each within the 45-day period specified in
subsection (a). OMB shall not include the same rescission in
both packages, and, if the President requests the rescission
of more than one discrete amount of funding under the
jurisdiction of
[[Page S4751]]
a single subcommittee, OMB shall include each of those
discrete amounts in the same package.
``SEC. 1024. REQUESTS TO RESCIND FUNDING.
``For each request to rescind funding under this part, the
transmittal message shall--
``(1) specify--
``(A) the dollar amount to be rescinded;
``(B) the agency, bureau, and account from which the
rescission shall occur;
``(C) the program, project, or activity within the account
(if applicable) from which the rescission shall occur;
``(D) the amount of funding, if any, that would remain for
the account, program, project, or activity if the rescission
request is enacted; and
``(E) the reasons the President requests the rescission;
``(2) designate each separate rescission request by number;
and
``(3) include proposed legislative language to accomplish
the requested rescissions which may not include--
``(A) any changes in existing law, other than the
rescission of funding; or
``(B) any supplemental appropriations, transfers, or
reprogrammings.
``SEC. 1025. GRANTS OF AND LIMITATIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL
AUTHORITY.
``(a) Presidential Authority to Withhold Funding.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law and if the
President proposes a rescission of funding under this part,
OMB may, subject to the time limits provided in subsection
(c), temporarily withhold that funding from obligation.
``(b) Expedited Procedures Available Only Once Per Bill.--
The President may not invoke the procedures of this part, or
the authority to withhold funding granted by subsection (a),
on more than 1 occasion for any Act providing funding.
``(c) Time Limits.--OMB shall make available for obligation
any funding withheld under subsection (a) on the earliest
of--
``(1) the day on which the President determines that the
continued withholding or reduction no longer advances the
purpose of legislative consideration of the rescission
request;
``(2) starting from the day on which OMB transmitted a
message to Congress requesting the rescission of funding, 25
calendar days in which the House of Representatives has been
in session or 25 calendar days in which the Senate has been
in session, whichever occurs second; or
``(3) the last day after which the obligation of the
funding in question can no longer be fully accomplished in a
prudent manner before its expiration.
``(d) Deficit Reduction.--
``(1) In general.--Funds that are rescinded under this part
shall be dedicated only to reducing the deficit or increasing
the surplus.
``(2) Adjustment of levels in the concurrent resolution on
the budget.--Not later than 5 days after the date of
enactment of an approval bill as provided under this part,
the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the Senate and
the House of Representatives shall revise allocations and
aggregates and other appropriate levels under the appropriate
concurrent resolution on the budget to reflect the repeal or
cancellation, and the applicable committees shall report
revised suballocations pursuant to section 302(b), as
appropriate.
``SEC. 1026. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF RESCISSION
REQUESTS.
``(a) Preparation of Legislation to Consider a Package of
Expedited Rescission Requests.--
``(1) In general.--If the House of Representatives receives
a package of expedited rescission requests, the Clerk shall
prepare a House bill that only rescinds the amounts requested
which shall read as follows:
``There are enacted the rescissions numbered [insert number
or numbers] as set forth in the Presidential message of
[insert date] transmitted under part C of the Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 as amended.
``(2) Exclusion procedure.--The Clerk shall include in the
bill each numbered rescission request listed in the
Presidential package in question, except that the Clerk shall
omit a numbered rescission request if the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the House, after consulting with
the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate,
CBO, GAO, and the House and Senate committees that have
jurisdiction over the funding, determines that the numbered
rescission does not refer to funding or includes matter not
permitted under a request to rescind funding.
``(b) Introduction and Referral of Legislation to Enact a
Package of Expedited Rescissions.--The majority leader or the
minority leader of the House or Representatives, or a
designee, shall (by request) introduce each bill prepared
under subsection (a) not later than 4 days of session of the
House after its transmittal, or, if no such bill is
introduced within that period, any member of the House may
introduce the required bill in the required form on the fifth
or sixth day of session of the House after its transmittal.
If such an expedited rescission bill is introduced in
accordance with the preceding sentence, it shall be referred
to the House committee of jurisdiction. A copy of the
introduced House bill shall be transmitted to the Secretary
of the Senate, who shall provide it to the Senate committee
of jurisdiction.
``(c) House Report and Consideration of Legislation to
Enact a Package of Expedited Rescissions.--The House
committee of jurisdiction shall report without amendment the
bill referred to it under subsection (b) not more than 5 days
of session of the House after the referral. The committee may
order the bill reported favorably, unfavorably, or without
recommendation. If the committee has not reported the bill by
the end of the 5-day period, the committee shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
``(d) House Motion to Proceed.--
``(1) In general.--After a bill to enact an expedited
rescission package has been reported or the committee of
jurisdiction has been discharged under subsection (c), it
shall be in order to move to proceed to consider the bill in
the House. A Member who wishes to move to proceed to
consideration of the bill shall announce that fact, and the
motion to proceed shall be in order only during a time
designated by the Speaker within the legislative schedule for
the next calendar day of legislative session or the one
immediately following it.
``(2) Failure to set time.--If the Speaker does not
designate a time under paragraph (1), 3 or more calendar days
of legislative session after the bill has been reported or
discharged, it shall be in order for any Member to move to
proceed to consider the bill.
``(3) Procedure.--A motion to proceed under this subsection
shall not be in order after the House has disposed of a prior
motion to proceed with respect to that package of expedited
rescissions. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to proceed, without intervening motion.
A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to
proceed has been disposed of shall not be in order.
``(4) Removal from calendar.--If 5 calendar days of
legislative session have passed since the bill was reported
or discharged under this subsection and no Member has made a
motion to proceed, the bill shall be removed from the
calendar.
``(e) House Consideration.--
``(1) Considered as read.--A bill consisting of a package
of rescissions under this part shall be considered as read.
``(2) Points of order.--All points of order against the
bill are waived, except that a point of order may be made
that 1 or more numbered rescissions included in the bill
would enact language containing matter not requested by the
President or not permitted under this part as part of that
package. If the Presiding Officer sustains such a point of
order, the numbered rescission or rescissions that would
enact such language are deemed to be automatically stripped
from the bill and consideration proceeds on the bill as
modified.
``(3) Previous question.--The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill to its passage without
intervening motion, except that 4 hours of debate equally
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent are
allowed, as well as 1 motion to further limit debate on the
bill.
``(4) Motion to reconsider.--A motion to reconsider the
vote on passage of the bill shall not be in order.
``(f) Senate Consideration.--
``(1) Referral.--If the House of Representatives approves a
House bill enacting a package of rescissions, that bill as
passed by the House shall be sent to the Senate and referred
to the Senate committee of jurisdiction.
``(2) Committee action.--The committee of jurisdiction
shall report without amendment the bill referred to it under
this subsection not later than 3 days of session of the
Senate after the referral. The committee may order the bill
reported favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation.
``(3) Discharge.--If the committee has not reported the
bill by the end of the 3-day period, the committee shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of the
bill and it shall be placed on the appropriate calendar.
``(4) Motion to proceed.--On the following day and for 3
subsequent calendar days in which the Senate is in session,
it shall be in order for any Senator to move to proceed to
consider the bill in the Senate. Upon such a motion being
made, it shall be deemed to have been agreed to and the
motion to reconsider shall be deemed to have been laid on the
table.
``(5) Debate.--Debate on the bill in the Senate under this
subsection, and all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall not exceed 10 hours, equally
divided and controlled in the usual form. Debate in the
Senate on any debatable motion or appeal in connection with
such a bill shall be limited to not more than 1 hour, to be
equally divided and controlled in the usual form. A motion to
further limit debate on such a bill is not debatable.
``(6) Motions not in order.--A motion to amend such a bill
or strike a provision from it is not in order. A motion to
recommit such a bill is not in order.
``(g) Senate Point of Order.--It shall not be in order
under this part for the Senate to consider a bill approved by
the House enacting a package of rescissions under this part
if any numbered rescission in the bill would enact matter not
requested by the President or not permitted under this Act as
part of that package. If a point of order under this
subsection is sustained, the bill may not be considered under
this part.''.
SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Table of Contents.--Section 1(b) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by
striking
[[Page S4752]]
the matter for part C of title X and inserting the following:
``PART C--Expedited Consideration of Proposed Rescissions
``Sec. 1021. Applicability and disclaimer.
``Sec. 1022. Definitions.
``Sec. 1023. Timing and packaging of rescission requests.
``Sec. 1024. Requests to rescind funding.
``Sec. 1025. Grants of and limitations on presidential authority.
``Sec. 1026. Congressional consideration of rescission requests.''.
(b) Temporary Withholding.--Section 1013(c) of the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by striking
``section 1012'' and inserting ``section 1012 or section
1025''
(c) Rulemaking.--
(1) 904(a).--Section 904(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 is amended by striking ``and 1017'' and inserting
``1017, and 1026''.
(2) 904(d)(1).--Section 904 (d)(1) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``1017'' and
inserting ``1017 or 1026''.
SEC. 4. AMENDMENTS TO PART A OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT.
(a) In General.--Part A of the Impoundment Control Act of
1974 is amended by inserting at the end the following:
``SEC. 1002. SEVERABILITY.
``If the judicial branch of the United States finally
determines that 1 or more of the provisions of parts B or C
violate the Constitution of the United States, the remaining
provisions of those parts shall continue in effect.''.
(b) Table of Contents.--Section 1(b) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amended by
inserting at the end of the matter for part A of title X the
following:
``Sec. 1002. Severability.''.
SEC. 5. EXPIRATION.
Part C of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended
by this Act) shall expire on December 31, 2014.
____________________