[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 16, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4958-S4967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN JOBS AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
4213, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate
amendment to H.R. 4213, an act to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for
other purposes.
Pending:
Baucus motion to concur in the amendment of the House to
the amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Baucus
amendment No. 4301 (to the amendment of the House to the
amendment of the Senate to the bill), in the nature of a
substitute.
Reid amendment No. 4344 (to amendment No. 4301), to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the time for
closing on a principal residence eligible for the first-time
homebuyer credit.
Thune/McConnell amendment No. 4333 (to amendment No. 4301),
of a perfecting nature.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will be 5 minutes of debate equally divided between the Senator from
Montana and the Senator from Iowa or their designees.
The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Amendment No. 4301
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this vote is about jobs--plainly and
simply about jobs. Fifteen million Americans are out of work. Fifteen
million Americans need our help.
We need to continue our efforts to get Americans back to work.
Creating jobs has been a top priority. The pending substitute amendment
to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act would help achieve
that goal.
The amendment would cut taxes for American workers and families by
more than $4 billion. The amendment would cut taxes for businesses by
$18 billion to help them expand and create jobs.
The amendment would extend Small Business Administration loan
programs to help restore the flow of credit. These programs will help
small businesses to grow and hire new workers. This extension
eliminates fees for certain SBA loans and increases government loan
guarantees.
Since their creation in the Recovery Act, these provisions have
supported more than $26 billion in small business lending. They have
helped to create or retain more than 650,000 jobs.
The amendment would expand community college and career training
grants offered through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. These
grants provide Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of
their own the opportunity to learn new skills to find good jobs.
The amendment would support more than 350,000 jobs for youth ages 14
to 24 by expanding successful summer jobs programs created in the
Recovery Act. This age group has some of the highest unemployment
levels. Fully one-quarter of those aged 16 to 19 are unemployed--one-
quarter.
The amendment would extend funding for States to provide wage
assistance to employers who hire new workers. Wage assistance helps
companies that might not otherwise be able to afford the cost of hiring
new workers to create jobs.
The amendment would provide targeted, temporary pension relief to
help employers who are struggling in this tough economy to continue to
fund employee pensions without cutting jobs or restricting new hiring.
This amendment is about creating good jobs.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I urge my
colleagues to support the amendment. Let's advance this effort to
create jobs.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is
recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this bill, as it comes forward, spends more
money than we budgeted for and, as a result, it violates the budget. We
are trying to get some fiscal discipline around here. This would be one
of the places we should start.
So I raise a point of order that the pending amendment offered by the
Senator from Montana would cause the aggregate level of budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2010, as set out in the most
recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget, S. Con. Res.
13, to be exceeded. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section
311(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3) of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of
those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
and the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). 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. 190 Leg.]
YEAS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
[[Page S4959]]
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--52
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Begich
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Risch
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
Wicker
NOT VOTING--3
Byrd
Lincoln
Roberts
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
52. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Under the previous order, the motion to concur with amendment No.
4301 to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4213 is
withdrawn.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of debate only until 12:30 p.m., with no amendments
or motions in order during this period; that the time be equally
divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees, with
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; and that
the order for the recognition of Senator Baucus still be in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask my friend to modify the consent
agreement to have the Senate be in recess from 1 p.m. until 2 p.m.
today. We will have a caucus going on at that time.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I so make that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Cobell Settlement
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the legislation that is pending and on
which we now have general debate is legislation that is important. I
know there has been plenty of discussion about it. I want to discuss
one element of it. The legislation includes provisions to approve the
Cobell settlement. The Cobell settlement is perhaps something which
people do not know much about. It is a settlement of a longstanding
lawsuit that has been winding its way through the Federal courts for 14
years. It is about things that have been done to American Indians that
are almost unthinkable and for which they have sought redress in the
Federal courts.
Let me describe this, if I may, by using a photograph of a woman.
This is a photograph of Mary Fish. By telling you a little about Ms.
Fish, I can describe the problem that the Cobell settlement, which is
in this underlying legislation, attempts to address.
Mary Fish died a few years ago. Mary Fish was an Oklahoma Indian. She
lived in a very small, humble house with 40 acres. There were six oil
wells on her land that had been pumping Oklahoma sweet crude for years.
Even with all of these oil wells pumping on Mary's land, she made only
a few dollars a year from those wells.
Why would it be the case that this woman had oil wells on her land,
lived in a small, little house, had virtually nothing, and got only a
few dollars from the oil wells? The problem dates back over 100 years
when the Federal Government divided up Indian tribal lands, and
distributed the land in trust to individual Indians, saying: We will
take care of your land for you. We will manage it. We will handle it.
And, by the way, we will provide you with the proceeds from leasing on
the lands.
Almost as soon as this system was set up, the Indian people found
that the Federal Government, and all kinds of other manipulators
involved, stole from them, cheated, and looted their lands and trust
accounts from those lands. The fact is, if you go back 100 years and
try to reconnect the trust accounts the Federal Government said they
were holding for these Indians--for grazing fees that were paid on the
Indian lands, for oil that was pumped from Indian lands, for minerals,
for agriculture--what you will find is this Federal Government going
back all those years does not have any records, cannot reconnect, does
not have the foggiest idea what happened. In addition, there were a lot
of unscrupulous people who were stealing, cheating, and looting. That
is why these American Indians, the first Americans--those who were here
first--14 years ago filed a case in Federal court now called Cobell v.
Salazar, a case against the Secretary of the Interior.
Cobell v. Salazar has languished for 14 years in the Federal court
system. At long last, there has been a negotiated settlement to settle
these claims that have existed for a long time. Claims of Indians being
cheated by a government that, in some cases, was corrupt for over 100
years.
That settlement is in the underlying legislation. The settlement was
not something the Congress did. The settlement was a settlement between
the Department of the Interior, led by Secretary Salazar, and the
plaintiffs, led by a woman named Elouise Cobell. Recently, the
plaintiffs and the Department of the Interior reached an agreement--
finally reached an agreement--to address this unbelievable set of
terrible events over the last century that cheated American Indians out
of what they were owed.
My colleague from Wyoming has offered an amendment to change the
settlement. My colleague, Senator Barrasso, is someone with whom I work
on the Indian Affairs Committee. I am Chair; he is Vice Chair of the
Committee. I have great respect for him. I do not take issue with the
fact he thinks this settlement, perhaps, could be better. I don't know
that. He has some ideas on how it can be changed.
The dilemma is that we are not a party to the negotiations to reach
that settlement. Perhaps if the Senator would send his recommendations
to the Secretary of the Interior and the plaintiffs and they sit down
at a table and decide if they want to renegotiate this or decide that.
Whether there are other ideas that could or should be added, perhaps
that might be beneficial. But if the Congress now decides that this
settlement, which is to be paid out of the United States Judgement
Fund, is not something that Congress supports, that it needs to be
changed, then I think this settlement will be scuttled, and we will be
back in the same position we were in.
The Federal judge who watched over the negotiations that reached a
settlement in the Cobell case set a deadline of 30 days and then a
second deadline and then a third deadline. The Congress missed all of
those deadlines--every single one. The Federal judge a few weeks ago
said: I would like to call Members of Congress down to my court to find
out what on Earth they are doing, what is going on. Why can this
settlement not get approved by Congress, because after 14 years, I
think the Federal court believed a settlement agreed to by both parties
was the appropriate thing to do. Despite this, Congress has missed all
the deadlines.
In these proceedings we have been considering the Cobell settlement
which is a part of the underlying legislation. I support that
settlement. Is it perfect? I don't know. I was not a part of the
negotiating team. That was the Interior Department and the plaintiffs,
the Native Americans on behalf of the plaintiffs who have been cheated
over all these years.
My colleague Senator Barrasso says the parties themselves made
changes to the settlement and so they should not mind a few more
changes by the Congress. The difference is who makes the changes. The
party to a settlement can make changes by agreement of the parties. But
if Congress makes changes unilaterally, of course, then Congress risks
voiding the entire settlement, which I fear would be the case.
Senator Barrasso's amendment would change the settlement and I think
risk sending these parties back into endless litigation that has gone
on now for 14 years. I do not think anybody wants that.
Senator Barrasso has said his proposed changes are within the
framework of the settlement. But the administration, Secretary Salazar,
and others have already sent a letter to the
[[Page S4960]]
Congress saying it believes these changes are material and would,
therefore, void the settlement. I do not think any of us would want
that to happen.
My colleague Senator Barrasso has not said the settlement is
unreasonable or unjust, only that he wants to improve the settlement.
With great respect to my colleague--and I do like him, and we work
together well on a lot of issues--I believe now is not the time to
decide after 14 years that this settlement needs improvement.
If the changes are within the framework of the settlement, my
recommendation is that he meet with the parties who were at the table
and reached this settlement. If they believe his ideas have some merit,
maybe some of them will find their way into the settlement. The
Congress was not a party to that settlement and should not make
unilateral changes.
I hope very much we can finally resolve more than a century of theft
and mismanagement through this settlement. When I talked about looting,
stealing, cheating, and theft, I understand that. I said that
deliberately. That is exactly what has happened. Even worse has been
the unbelievable mismanagement of those funds that cheated a whole lot
of people.
This is a photograph, as I indicated, of Mary Fish. I said she had
six oil wells on her land. She lived in a humble little house and got a
couple dollars from them. Somebody else got the money. Who got the
money? What happened to the money from the oil wells on this woman's
land that led her to die before she had a chance to lead a good life,
to have the resources that should have been hers?
I have another photograph, this woman's name is Susan White Calf. She
is from the Blackfeet tribe. She is a Blackfeet Indian. She passed away
in November of 2007. This picture was in 2001. She took this picture
with her grandchildren.
Mr. President, 2001, by the way, was the same year that the Federal
courts found that the Federal Government had broken its trust
responsibility to the American Indians by this unbelievable
mismanagement of Indian trust funds. The Federal Government said: Trust
us. We will take care of your funds. We will take care of your assets.
Trust us. The fact is, unbelievable mismanagement, some theft, and some
looting occurred.
Six years later after 2001, 6 years after the courts found that the
Federal Government had broken its trust responsibility to American
Indians, Susie died, still waiting to get the money that was owed her
for grazing leases on land she owned. This is money that Susie White
Calf should have had during her life but did not because the Federal
Government dropped the ball, was guilty of unbelievable mismanagement.
This problem of mismanagement goes back well into the 1800s.
When you read the stories of how the Indians were cheated and the
federal mismanagement, and then take a look at where the records were
being stored. It is unbelievable. You cannot even reconstruct the
records that were stored in rat-infested warehouses. You cannot find
some records, and you find others in rat-infested warehouses.
I ask unanimous consent to proceed for as much time as I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will not speak long. Let me continue and
finish.
When the historic accomplishment occurred of settling this lawsuit
after 14 years between the Federal Government and the plaintiffs, when
that historic agreement was reached, I was hopeful the Congress would
move very quickly and provide the resources, from the Settlement Fund,
that are available to make this settlement work.
I hope very much, if there is a vote--I don't know there will be a
vote on the Barrasso amendment--if there is a vote on the Barrasso
amendment, I hope very much my colleagues will oppose it.
I say to Senator Barrasso that the ideas, recommendations, and
thoughts he has about this settlement should be presented to both sides
who negotiated the settlement. In fact, if Congress were to
unilaterally make changes, I think it would void the settlement. Void
it after 14 long years and a lot of important work that would culminate
in a settlement that plaintiffs have been waiting for and plaintiffs
well deserve.
I urge my colleagues, as the Administration has urged, let us not
unilaterally go outside the settlement that has been structured and
negotiated. Let's decide to do what I believe Congress has a
responsibility to do.
The longer this drags out, the more the American people see what was
done to American Indians, the more people see how badly some of these
people were cheated. Yes, this woman, who never got her money and died
long before that money was ever available. Yes, this woman, who lived
humbly all her life with six oil wells on her land and got virtually
nothing from it. Do we have to continue to talk about these issues, or
should we settle this and do what the Federal Government should do: own
up to its responsibility, say we have done wrong here, say we will fix
it now, say the trust accounts are going to work the way they should
work. But to recompense for past mistakes and for money that was not
given to the first Americans that the Federal Government promised would
be theirs, that belonged to them, came from their lands, let's not
interrupt that with an amendment on the floor of the Senate on this
legislation. Let us instead decide we will ratify this agreement and
put this behind us.
It is a very sad, sorry chapter in the history of this government in
the way they have treated American Indians.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous
order regarding debate be extended to 1 p.m. under the same conditions,
and limited.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Restoring Market Credibility
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I have always believed--and I have spoken
many times on the Senate floor--that the two most important things that
make America great are democracy and free capital markets.
But over the last year, as many of my colleagues are aware, I have
become deeply concerned that the credibility of our stock markets--one
of our Nation's most precious national treasures--can no longer be
taken for granted.
On May 6, when the markets yo-yoed up and down, plunging 573 points
in a mere 5 minutes before recovering 543 points in the next 90
seconds--it was nothing less than an embarrassment.
The strength of our stock market depends on its ability to establish
an accurate price for a company's fundamental value that reflects a
consensus among buyers and sellers at any given moment.
In that capacity, the markets failed, in fact they spectacularly
failed, for a harrowing 20-minute time period.
In the aftermath of May 6, the integrity of our markets has been
questioned, and investor confidence has been shaken.
In order to restore market credibility and instill confidence among
the investing public, regulators and lawmakers alike must act wisely
but urgently to fix the structural schisms that plague today's capital
markets.
That is why I am encouraged, and relieved, that Mary Schapiro, the
Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, clearly understands
what is at stake.
Testifying before the Senate Subcommittee for Securities, Insurance,
and Investment on May 20, she said:
I believe the markets exist for public companies to raise
capital, to build businesses, and create jobs, and they exist
for investors to support that activity. And those are the
number one and number two purposes of markets. And everything
else from my perspective has to be put into the context of
those two goals.
At a panel last week in Montreal at the International Organization of
Securities Commissions, Chairman Schapiro reiterated that point, saying
the SEC needs to . . .
[E]xplore whether bids and orders should be regulated on
speed so there is less incentive to engage in this
microsecond arms race
[[Page S4961]]
that might undermine long-term investors and the market's
capital-formation function. The markets have to serve that
function for companies to raise money, create jobs and allow
the economy to grow . . . We are also looking at whether and
to what extent pre-trade price discovery is impaired by
the diversion of desirable, marketable order flow from
public markets to dark pools.
I couldn't agree more with Chairman Schapiro.
May 6 made clear what many have long claimed: today's overly-
fragmented marketplace, which seems to favor speed over substance, and
trading over investing, may be inhibiting the capital-formation process
and failing to protect the interests of long-term investors.
If that is the case, then regulatory action is needed urgently.
Simply put, do stock prices adequately reflect the economics of the
companies they represent?
On May 6, when liquidity vanished and established companies like
Accenture traded briefly for a penny a share, the answer to the
question of whether our markets are performing their central function
was clearly no.
But rather than an aberration, it appears that the May 6 flash crash
was no isolated event.
On June 2, we saw yet another ``mini-flash crash'' in the stock of
Diebold, a technological services company.
Prior to 12:22 p.m. that day, Diebold had traded at around $28 per
share and within a range of roughly 80 cents.
In the next minute, the rug was swept out from under Diebold as
399,000 shares were traded and Diebold's stock price plunged 35 percent
to $18.
By 12:40, Diebold was once again trading at $28 per share.
The sudden decline in price appeared to be in response to news of
Diebold's settlement with the SEC over fraudulent accounting practices,
which Bloomberg began reporting at 12:25 and Diebold confirmed with a
press release a little more than an hour later.
The SEC should investigate both the manner in which the news broke
and the trading activity that followed it.
In the aftermath of the extreme plunge, questions have been raised
concerning the manner in which the SEC filed the complaint, which data
feeds first reported it, and the electronic overreaction to the news--
all of which suggest that the severe volatility in Diebold could have
been largely avoided altogether.
The SEC was actually resolving an old investigation with Diebold, the
settlement of which had been previously disclosed, and not making any
new accusations against the company.
But when word of the complaint reached Bloomberg or other sources, it
led to a ``trigger'' that potentially activated algorithms programmed
to react immediately to breaking news. This may explain why trading
activity in Diebold exploded shortly before the story broke publicly.
Notably, the SEC filed the complaint manually at the U.S. Federal
District Court in DC during market hours rather than using the Public
Access to Court Electronic Records--PACER--filing system.
Mr. President, regulators should add to their list the need to
examine whether the precipitous drop in Diebold stock was the result of
high frequency traders who can subscribe directly to market data and
news feeds and perhaps had programmed faulty correlations into their
algorithms to react to breaking news events.
Indeed, with so much of the marketplace dominated by high frequency
traders employing similar strategies, an overreaction by a few
algorithms looking to trade instantaneously on the basis of imprecise
correlations could trigger a dramatic plunge.
While the algorithms' calculations may be accurate ``most of the
time,'' the chaos that ensues when they are not inexcusably undermines
investor confidence.
In the Diebold case, once the algorithmic overreaction became clear,
humans with actual knowledge of Diebold's true fundamentals quickly
intervened. It is no surprise, then, that the stock price rebounded so
quickly.
Though volatility has always been present in the markets, we see that
without human judgment the speed of trading can indeed lead to very
brief ``bungee jumps'' for individual stocks whenever there is a
significant news event.
At the same time, regulators should also consider whether the extreme
volatility in Diebold's stock is yet another example of sell orders
breaking through a ``razor-thin crust'' of liquidity provided by high-
frequency traders.
As we saw on May 6, the high-frequency traders who fill the order
books on many market centers provide only ``fleeting'' liquidity,
particularly in periods of market stress or uncertainty.
This is because many high frequency traders prefer to continuously
place and cancel small, rapid-fire orders rather than risk letting
their orders sit on public venues where they would increase order book
depth and promote orderly markets.
Regardless of what caused Diebold's ``bungee jump'' or the May 6
market meltdown, we should all agree that such unusual market activity
strikes at the very heart of our market's credibility.
Even if the SEC's circuit breaker pilot program--which would halt
trading for 5 minutes in any S&P 500 stock that experiences a 10
percent price change in the previous 5 minutes--were in place, market
and stop-loss orders would still remain vulnerable to a 10 percent
insta-drop.
This situation undermines the confidence of long-term investors.
Mr. President, the Diebold incident and other factors from May 6 make
me concerned about what our markets have become.
According to a research group survey of 145 market participants
conducted in the weeks following May 6, I am not alone.
The Executive Summary of the survey results states overall investor
confidence in the existing market structure is waning.
The summary says:
Barely half of all participants have at least a high degree
of confidence in U.S. equity market structure; The buy side
has the least confidence in U.S. equity market structure.
This is particularly demoralizing given they are the
guardians over much of our nation's equity investments;
Participants no longer believe market structure strongly
supports an orderly market; Increasingly, market participants
believe that the U.S. equity market structure is not a level
playing field.
These results underscore how critical it is for regulators to address
problems with the current market structure in order to restore investor
confidence and protect the strength and credibility of our capital
markets.
Sadly, Mr. President, the fact is that we simply do not have the data
we need to assess fully the impact of market structure changes on long-
term investors.
Indeed, regulators currently lack sufficient information on the
routing history of orders--including those that may go through broker-
dealer internalization venues, other dark pools, and multiple exchanges
and ECNs before being executed.
The SEC also acknowledges it does not have: ``important information
on the time of the trade or the identity of the customer.''
As Kevin Cronin, the director of Global Equity Trading at Invesco, a
retail and institutional investment fund, said at a June 2 SEC
Roundtable:
There are dimensions of cost that today we do not have the
ability to really understand.
Accordingly, I have pushed for the SEC to quickly implement tagging
for large traders and a consolidated audit trail in order to gain a
more granular view of the marketplace.
Once the Commission has collected the data, it should improve its
internal analytical capabilities while also making the data available
in masked form to the public, or at least academics and independent
analysts, so that objective experts can study market performance
comprehensively.
I admit there are no easy solutions, Mr. President, but we need to
strive to answer the difficult questions or millions of Americans will
eventually lose confidence in our markets and leave what is already
starting to look like a ``casino.''
In that regard, Chairman Schapiro again appears to be on the right
track. Regulators must consider, as she said, whether high frequency
traders should be subject to speed limits and whether deep and valuable
liquidity is being shielded from the public marketplace.
Our markets should not be reduced to a battle of algorithms in which
capital formation is an afterthought and long-term investors are
relegated to second-tier status, nor should the public ``lit'' markets
house only ``exhaust'' order
[[Page S4962]]
flow that is passed over by those who trade in dark pools.
Perhaps high-frequency traders who claim to be ``modern-day market-
makers'' should be subject to some quoting obligations like their
traditional market-maker predecessors.
Setting reasonable speed limits on how quickly such traders can
withdraw their bids and offers, as Chairman Schapiro alluded to last
week, could help level the playing field and make the markets safer and
more stable for all investors.
I have also proposed requiring exchanges and market centers to
allocate costs at least partially based on message traffic share.
Cancellations, of course, are not inherently bad--they can enhance
liquidity by affording automated traders greater flexibility when
posting quotes.
But with as many as 98 percent of orders placed on Nasdaq cancelled
or otherwise unexecuted on a given trading day, their use is clearly
excessive.
Those who choke the system with cancellations make the markets less
efficient for investors. And they should pay the price for the
inefficiencies they create.
Exchanges cater to high frequency traders in a variety of ways, by
electing not to charge them for high cancellation rates, and providing
co-location services for their computers right next to the exchanges'
own servers.
Fortunately, co-location and direct market data feeds appear to be on
the regulatory radar--the CFTC proposed a rule last week to ensure
exchanges provide ``fair access'' for, and increased transparency of,
co-location services.
But new practices that further threaten market integrity have
recently come to light.
Several market participants, including institutional investment
adviser Southeastern Asset Management, have said exchanges are
releasing private information on investor orders, including details on
the total shares an investor has accumulated and other data that could
be used by high-frequency traders to trade ahead of investor orders.
It is important to remember that these potentially disadvantaged
institutional orders represent the tens of millions of Americans who
invest in mutual, pension, and retirement funds.
These market practices, among many others, underscore how critical it
is for regulators to keep pace with market developments. The May 6
flash crash and the miniflash crash in Diebold a month later have
sounded the alarm that the very credibility of our market is at stake.
While regulators must continue to rely on data to drive the rulemaking
process and be mindful of unintended consequences, they cannot delay in
tackling the problems that leave us vulnerable to another flash crash
today.
As an engineer and a graduate of Wharton Business School, I
understand and appreciate as much as anyone the importance of
innovation and technological development. I want to make it clear I am
not interested in banning high frequency trading or dark pools, nor am
I advocating a return to the horse-and-buggy system. But new
technologies must operate in a regulatory framework that considers both
positive and negative consequences. If the public marketplace has been
reduced to a battle of algorithms in which liquidity is fleeting and
inaccessible when investors need it the most, and if the deep liquidity
that is so critical to establishing accurate prices--particularly
during times of market stress--is largely traded in dark pools, that
must be carefully but urgently remedied.
As John Wooden, the legendary UCLA basketball coach who passed away 2
weeks ago, used to say, ``Be quick, but don't hurry.''
Be quick, don't hurry.
The SEC and CFTC must adopt the same philosophy as they confront the
great challenges before them.
``Be quick, but don't hurry.''
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time
used during the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand the time has been divided
during this debate until 1 o'clock. Can I learn how much time is
available on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 15 minutes remaining.
Gulf Oilspill
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to discuss briefly the President's
remarks last evening to the Nation about the oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico and the actions that this administration has been doing to
address that. I would also like to discuss issues related to BP, the
company that leased the area offshore and drilled the exploratory well
which exploded in the gulf.
First of all, I know there is a great deal of anxiety, nervousness
and anger about all this. I understand all that because all of us are
frustrated that the oil continues to flow. It is a mile down beneath
the surface of the water, which is known as a deepwater well. All of us
are frustrated that this spill has not been contained. But the
President did not cause that spill, and the President himself cannot
fix it.
I do know this though. The Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary
of Energy, and many other senior administration officials have brought
together the best minds in the world as a team to try to evaluate what
kinds of technologies and actions that can be used to fix that leak and
stop that gusher. They have consulted many experts. They have consulted
the Norwegians who drill in the North Sea in deepwater drilling. They
have consulted with many interests. While it is not a case where they
have not done everything conceivable to shut down that spill, and I
think, as the President suggested last evening, we are beginning to
make some good progress.
Then the next issue is how do you deal with the impact on the coastal
regions in the Gulf of Mexico. This is unbelievably devastating to
these States. How do you deal with that? As I have indicated, what
about the guy who has a fishing boat on the pier. The pier is deserted.
The boat sits at the end of the pier. There is no opportunity to fish.
And that person has to make a payment on the boat each month. What
about that person and what about the tens of thousands of others like
him? What about the ecological and environmental damage that has been
caused as well? All of those issues are critically important.
I appreciate the fact that the President gave a speech to the Nation.
I think it was important to do that. I also appreciate the fact that
this administration was on this very quickly. But it is frustrating for
them and for all of us that the leak from that well has not been
stopped.
I do want to mention the issue of BP because the President mentioned
it last night, and we have talked about it before. BP has said they
will stand behind all legitimate claims and reimburse people for those
impacts. I said last week--and I know the President has also now said
it as well. It is one thing to make a pledge but another to follow
through on a commitment. We have heard about pledges before. In the
Exxon Valdez disaster, Exxon made a pledge to pay for the economic and
other damages but then fought it for 20 years. A whole lot of folks
died before they saw the result of what they were promised. So pledges
are one thing. I want a binding commitment from the responsible party.
If BP says they are going to stand behind this--if they do not stand
behind this, the taxpayers will eventually end up picking up the tab.
So the issue is, if BP says: We pledge this, I say that is fine, let's
make it a binding commitment. Put the money in a recovery fund. You can
call it what you want--a trust fund, an escrow account, a recovery
fund. Put the money in there so we know it will
[[Page S4963]]
be available for use to those who have been impacted. I also think that
there needs to be some sort of special master work to find a mechanism
by which you begin to get the money out to the people who are hurting.
That is what needs to be done.
There is debate about whether BP should pay a dividend to its
shareholders that it announced several weeks ago. Of course they should
not pay a dividend. There ought to be no dividend at this point. They
need to have the money available to recompense all of the damages for
all of the people and all the natural resource damages that have
occurred as a result of this devastating gusher a mile under the ocean.
So I don't want them to pay a dividend. They shouldn't be talking about
a dividend. All of the discussion ought to be about how much money you
put in this recovery fund.
Thad Allen has written to BP saying: How about some more transparency
in how your are making decisions to compensate communities and
individuals? I know BP has paid some funding to people, but Thad Allen
has said: How about some increasing transparency? Let's find out what
you are paying, whom you are paying, how you are paying. What is the
criteria? How about some transparency here? We shouldn't have to be
asking those questions. The money ought to be put in a fund, and that
fund ought to be administered by people who are putting together the
criteria by which we address the problems that are being confronted by
people all up and down the Gulf Coast. That is what ought to happen.
Another company that is responsible here is Transocean. By the way,
Transocean was the company who BP leased the mobile offshore drilling
unit from, and they were drilling under contract for BP. They are going
to have some responsibility as well, I expect.
Let me give you a description here because it is so symbolic of what
is happening too often in this country. Transocean was an American
headquartered company, but they moved to Switzerland not too long ago.
Why did they move to Switzerland? I assume so they do not have to pay
American taxes. Go find a tax haven so you do not have pay taxes to the
United States. So they have, as I understand it, about 1,200 employees
working in Houston, TX, and about 12 employees in Switzerland. Yet they
declare Switzerland their headquarters.
They had a meeting in Switzerland some weeks ago and decided they
were going to pay a $1 billion dividend to their shareholders. They
ought not be paying dividends either. They, too, ought to keep this
funding available in case it is needed--when it is needed--to be
helpful to the people on the Gulf Coast who are seeing these
unbelievable impacts. So they ought not be paying dividends at all.
Again, we should be asking questions about Transocean. Is it a big
company that should have some liability here? I guess so. It operates
140 mobile offshore drilling units. It is the world's largest offshore
drilling contractor. But again I say, as I have said before, why is it
that when you pull the pages back and unearth the story, you discover,
that this is a company that moved its headquarters for tax purposes?
They first went to the Cayman Islands and then went to Switzerland.
Yet, hey have a handful of people in Switzerland and most of the people
in Texas. Why does it not want to be an American company? I guess to
avoid paying U.S. taxes. Why is it that all these companies want the
opportunity to utilize all that our country has to offer but none of
the obligations to the country? It is unbelievable, to me.
But with respect to dividends, I say to BP and Transocean: Don't be
doing that. You are going to need that money.
Let's make a binding commitment--no more pledges. That old movie,
``Jerry McGuire,'' where Cuba Gooding, Jr., says, ``Show me the
money''--show me the money. Let's have that money go from a pledge to a
binding commitment in a recovery fund, and that will give a whole lot
of folks who are hurting today some feeling that maybe, just maybe,
they are going to get helped.
I also wanted to make a couple of other points about how the Senate
addresses energy and climate change legislation.
Last evening, the President talked about the need for Congress to
take up energy legislation. I agree with that. The fact is, we passed
an energy bill out of the Energy Committee last June. I want to debate
and vote on it on the floor of the Senate.
There are all of these questions about energy versus climate change.
Look, the Energy bill we passed will maximize the production of
renewable energy. It will help build the transmission lines, the
interstate highway of transmission capability, around our country that
is necessary so that you can produce energy where the Sun shines and
the wind blows and move it to the load centers where it is needed. It
can help do all of these things. It includes provisions for building
efficiency and retrofits. It does a lot of things to reduce carbon.
I guess my approach to energy is best described--and I didn't take
Latin in a high school of nine students in my senior class. But I call
my approach ``totus porkus,'' which probably in Latin would mean
something like ``whole hog.'' I think we ought to do everything. Let's
do everything and do it well. Let's responsibly produce more oil and
gas here and do it the right way. Let's maximize wind, solar and other
renewable resources. Let's have the first ever renewable energy
standard that says we anticipate that 20 percent. We need to get 20
percent of all of the electricity produced from renewable sources.
Let's support biomass and more biofuels. Let's do all of those things
and do them well, even as we do them differently, including using coal
by capturing the carbon.
By the way, there are a lot of ways to do that. Sandia National
Laboratories is working on ways to change the way we think about
CO2. Yes, CO2 is a major problem, but it can also
be a product. Why don't you think of this not just as a problem but a
product? What kind of beneficial use can you develop with
CO2 that turns a problem into an asset?
I chair the subcommittee on appropriations that funds the energy
research and development for the Department of Energy. We are doing a
lot of unbelievable things that take a look at beneficial use of
CO2. Even as we reduce the emissions into the atmosphere to
try to protect this planet, we can find ways to use CO2 in a
beneficial way and protect our planet.
My point is this about taking up legislation: Some say, well, you
have to bring climate change to the floor of the Senate right now.
Look, I don't think there are 60 votes for a climate change bill. But
if that is the case, we will see. But at this point, we do know we have
a bipartisan bill on energy legislation from the Senate Energy
Committee does all of the right things. We ought to try to reduce our
dependency on foreign oil and do that soon. We can do that by bringing
the Energy bill we have already passed on a bipartisan basis to the
floor of the Senate--the sooner the better, in my judgment.
I know we are short of time. I know Senator Reid and others--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. We have all talked about the prospects of debating energy
legislation and want to do the right thing. I hope, as the President
indicated last night, the right thing is to pass good, comprehensive
energy legislation that will make us less dependant on foreign oil and
begin to address climate change at the same time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 15 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Gulf Oilspill
Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise today for the purposes of giving some context
and commenting in response to the President's speech last night as well
as to some of my colleagues who have spoken on the need for a
comprehensive energy policy as we move forward. But I would like to
begin by just reminding us all that today is the 57th day of what may
prove to be one of the most damaging environmental accidents in our
Nation's history.
Fifty-seven days ago, the tragic explosion of the Deepwater Horizon
took the lives of 11 men and unleashed an uncontrolled and
uncontrollable, to date, torrent of oil and gas into the
[[Page S4964]]
Gulf of Mexico. It threatens our environment, and it threatens our
economy and the wetlands that underpin a way of life, a precious way of
life in the gulf region.
I have had the--I guess unfortunate opportunity to spend some time
with the widows. And I say ``unfortunate'' because I wish I could have
met them under different circumstances. But to hear their remembrances
of their husbands, to hear the way they expressed to me the heartfelt
commitment their spouses had to this industry and to their work and
their call for this work to be more safe, for companies to be held
accountable, but also their call--which I think serves as real
testimony on their behalf to the American people--their call for this
deepwater industry to continue, was very moving to me and to all people
who I think have had the opportunity to meet these young and very
impressive women. I was proud to introduce the Senate resolution
honoring these men and their families. I wish to thank my colleagues
for agreeing to this resolution unanimously.
But today I wanted to speak on three important issues relative to
this general situation: one, the need for better safety regulations and
improvements at MMS; the other, the impacts of this moratoria; and the
call for accelerated revenue sharing and an accelerated claims process.
First, let me begin with the need for better safety regulations.
There are more than 300,000 men and women who work in the oil and gas
industry in Louisiana alone. There are a significant number of them who
work offshore and directly support both the offshore and onshore
industry. The offshore crewmen know this work can be dangerous. They go
through a variety of safety drills and regulations routinely. And we
owe it to them to make sure these activities are safer in the future.
For this reason, I have fully supported a thorough review of offshore
drilling safety standards and have applauded the Department, and
particularly Secretary Ken Salazar, for his willingness to clean house
at the Minerals Management Service.
This tragedy brought to light an unhealthy relationship that has
existed, unfortunately for many years, between the oil industry and the
Federal regulators who are called to regulate them, to make sure this
industry is safe. That must be changed. The regulators did not have the
resources to push back. They did not have the expertise.
We in Congress bear some responsibility for that. And that did not
start under President Obama's administration, but it should end under
President Obama's administration. This Congress systematically
undermanned and underfunded this important agency by not giving it the
appropriate attention it needs, and it is our responsibility to fix it.
I look forward to meeting with the man whom the President has
appointed or nominated to head MMS. I will be making my own independent
decision of whether he is the right person for this position. Until I
meet him and talk with him and understand a little bit more about him,
I will reserve my judgment.
We need a Minerals Management Service that is to be a proud,
competent, and respected industry watchdog. We need the watchdog back.
We need the cop back on the beat if we are to ensure that an accident
of this magnitude never happens again off our shores. As I have said,
Minerals Management--many of these employees are my constituents. One
of their main offices is in Metairie, LA. I have been there. I have met
many of them, and they are some very good people. But they need to be
well managed. They need to be well led. They need to be given the
resources they need to do the job they can do if that happens.
The Coast Guard also has a role to play. We should strengthen the
Coast Guard's role and make sure that between Interior and the Coast
Guard, they are getting the job done for the American people.
Nobody in the country wants this job done better, nobody wants this
industry more safe than the people from Louisiana and Mississippi and
Alabama and Texas who man these rigs, although, as you know, when you
were with me, Mr. President, some of our people said to you in the
meeting just last week: We were grateful for the men from Illinois who
came down to work on these rigs. So we want people to know we have
people from all over the country, from Illinois and Maine who come and
do shifts 2 weeks offshore, make a good living for their family,
support their families for years. We want it to be safe for everyone.
So I applaud the President and Secretary Salazar for getting MMS back
on the right track. That work needs to be done. As I said, the cop
needs to be put back on the beat.
Let me speak for a few minutes, though, about this ill-conceived and
arbitrary 6-month moratorium. The effort the President is making to
ensure this terrible tragedy never happens again is commendable. It is
beyond aggravating. It is disgusting. It angers us so much to see the
terrible tragedy unfolding on our televisions and to open newspapers
across the land and see the most horrific pictures of wildlife being
affected, of dolphins and pelicans and birds, precious places to us
that we not only work but vacation with our families for many years.
It is very hard to look at those pictures. Americans are suffering
through this as we watch this horror movie unfold. But what the
President has done could cause even more economic damage than the spill
itself, by putting a 6-month moratorium on all rigs drilling below 500
feet.
I know we have to make sure these 33 floating rigs that drill in deep
water and the other standard platforms that drill between 500 and 1,000
feet are safe. But I wish to say unequivocally and with the support of
the vast majority of the people of my State and throughout the gulf, 6
months is too long. The deepwater industry cannot survive in the gulf
with a 6-month pause. This work has to be done more quickly. The
commission was announced last month. It was just seated a few days ago.
The work is just beginning. There doesn't seem to be a sense of
urgency. We need a greater sense of urgency to get this work done.
I was pleased to hear the President say he has urged them to get
their work done before the 6-month timeframe. That was a slight step in
the right direction. But this work has to be done in a much shorter
period than 6 months. These rigs will not stay in the gulf for 6 months
idling at a cost of $500,000 a day. They can't be fiduciarily
responsible to their investors and do that. They have to move to where
they can drill. So they will. We have already received signals they
will simply pick up and move off the coast of Africa or Brazil or Cuba
or other places--Venezuela--to drill. They can't sit idly in the gulf.
We have to figure out a way to make sure they are safe, that this never
happens again, and make sure they don't leave. That is the challenge
before this administration in the next couple of days and weeks,
starting with a meeting I will have with Secretary Salazar this
afternoon with a broad coalition of leaders, both from the private
sector and the public sector, who are committed to keeping the economy
of the gulf coast strong. We have to find a way forward that is
somewhere between doing nothing and having all of these rigs leave and
not come back for several years. That is one of the points on the
moratorium.
Second, I wish to ask the President for his personal support and the
support of this body to accelerate revenue sharing, or to accelerate
revenue sharing to accelerate a large stream of revenue that is
reliable for the Gulf Coast States to be able to rebuild our barrier
islands, to rebuild our coast, to sustain this economy and this ecology
and this environment over the long run so we can produce the oil and
gas this country desperately needs.
Even though this Horizon accident happened 57 days ago, 57 days ago
this country was using 20 billion barrels of oil a day. Today, 57 days
later, 11 lives lost, the rig at the bottom of the ocean, we are still
using 20 billion barrels a day. The President did not say to people
last night to park their cars and walk to work. He didn't say that. I
didn't hear him say that.
We have to understand we have to continue to drill for oil and gas.
But when we drill for oil and gas, the taxes that are paid to the
Federal Government and have been paid over the years to the tune of
$165 billion to the Federal Government from severances and royalties,
that some of that money
[[Page S4965]]
come back to the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and,
yes, even Florida, in my view, even if they decide not to drill. They
are at risk. They are at the front line. We are not the only coastal
States, but we are the frontline coastal States. Those revenues need to
come back to us.
We passed a bill some years ago, a bill I worked on for 15 years,
called the Landrieu-Domenici Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. That
bill is in effect. But because of concerns about the deficit, because
of a lack of understanding of the urgency by this Congress and past
Congresses, that money doesn't come to us until 2017. We can see that
is too late. We can see it with our own eyes. We can feel it with our
own heart. We can see it is too late now. We needed that money 20 years
ago. We needed it 5 years ago. We need it today.
For any energy bill to pass, with all due respect to my good friend,
Byron Dorgan; with all due respect to Senators who have been leading
this energy effort, there will be no energy bill. The gulf coast
Senators will not allow it. There will be no energy bill of any
magnitude without recognizing the vital need for these Gulf Coast
States to share appropriately, as interior States share the revenues
for drilling. Interior States such as New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah keep 50
percent of the taxes. So the State of Wyoming last year got $1 billion.
We could clean up a lot of pelicans with $1 billion. Louisiana got
virtually nothing.
Our people are on the front line with oil washing up to their knees,
and this Congress basically keeps 100 percent of the money. Those days
are over. We are going to have some kind of accelerated revenue sharing
in any energy bill. Gulf coast Senators will not allow a bill to pass
this floor without something we believe is fair to our people.
The third issue I wish to speak to the President about and to the
Congress--and the President mentioned it last night, and I am
grateful--is an accelerated claims process. These claims are going to
be different than any kind of claim process that has been paid, maybe
similar to what happened after Katrina and Rita, as Mississippi and
Louisiana and Alabama struggled with how to make people whole. This is
going to be a complicated and difficult situation. We have workers who
can't work, who were used to making $500 to $1,000 a week, pretty
fairly decent wages, not great but decent. They have not been able to
work for a long time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, that is a modest wage and a decent wage.
But it gets a lot more complicated than that. There are boat captains
who were getting their business back after Katrina and Rita,
recreational boat captains, fishing captains. Unlike Florida where
people will come to the beach and then they will see a boat charter and
they will wander onto the wharf and charter the boat, that does not
happen in Louisiana because we don't have many beaches. People call
from Mexico and Canada and all over the country months in advance and
charter a specific boat with a specific captain because we have some of
the best fishing in the world. They come with their sons and daughters
and their grandsons and granddaughters. They come down with major
corporate groups and do this chartering. These companies make millions
of dollars a year. They can't work either.
This claims process is going to be difficult. We have restaurants in
New Orleans that are 70 miles from the gulf. They have had to either
shut their doors or turn down their number of hours of operating or
take things off their menus. I don't know how we will calculate the
economic damage to them. This is going to be complicated.
We have hotels. We have retirees who own three or four condos. A
woman came up to me and said: Mary, my mother is not a business person.
She is a retiree. She owns a couple of condos in Florida. That is her
retirement income. She rents out these condos. She has had all
cancellations this summer. What am I going to do for her?
That is a good question. She will file a claim.
From retirees with condos they rent out to supplement their incomes
to fishing boat captains to hotels to restaurants and to the workers
themselves, I am glad the President is taking the bull by the horns
with this claims process. I hope he is having a frank discussion with
Tony Hayward at his office today about that to make sure we don't have
one bankruptcy, that we don't have one business, a small business or a
medium-size business or a large business that goes bankrupt because of
BP's gross negligence in the Gulf of Mexico. They have put the industry
at risk. They have put the gulf coast at risk. That claims process
needs to work. We have a great job to do ahead of us.
Those are the three points I wished to make. One, we most certainly
need to move forward on a balanced energy bill. There will be no energy
bill; gulf coast Senators will block anything that does not have
immediate help for Gulf Coast States. Let my colleagues be on notice.
We can debate the rest of the bill, how we move forward, whether we do
nuclear or a portion of drilling or wind or solar. These Gulf Coast
States are on the front lines, and we are going to get justice for them
in the near future. We are going to accelerate and make the claims
process more robust, and we are going to continue to put pressure on
the White House and Secretary Salazar, respectfully, but appropriately,
to say: Let's get our safety work done in the gulf. We cannot lose this
industry. We cannot lose these jobs. Our economy depends on it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURRIS. 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. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed.
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I recognize this is Republican time, and
should a Republican come, I will then yield the floor to that colleague
of mine.
(The remarks of Mr. Burris pertaining to the submission of S. Res.
559 are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')
Gulf Oilspill
Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, very briefly, in terms of President
Obama's speech last night on the crisis in the gulf, I just want to let
it be known for the record that I support our President in that speech
and every effort he has made in trying to get direction and a solution
to the problems we are experiencing down on our gulf coast.
I find it disheartening and disappointing all these commentators who
want to attack our President, want him to be angry, want him to act. I
have no idea what they want this man to do. But I know this man is
doing all he can for the people of America. I ask those commentators to
get off of his back, stop attacking the President, who had nothing to
do with that problem and is putting everything he has with the
resources America has to solve this problem.
This has never happened before in our history. It is a problem beyond
comprehension. Yet, still, these Monday morning quarterbacks sit back
and criticize and bring out their undocumented types of statements
about our President that I just feel emotionally disturbed about.
So I say to all Americans, this President is doing all he can to
support this issue we are facing, and you have to deal with BP, you
have to deal with Transocean, and you have to deal with Halliburton.
Those are the ones who are responsible for this problem. Let's go after
them. Make them pay. Make them deal with this and get the solution and,
therefore, Americans can move forward.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor, and 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. BINGAMAN. 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.
[[Page S4966]]
The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. LeMIEUX. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about
the crisis we are having in the Gulf of Mexico and how it is impacting
Florida, with the worst economic and environmental disaster in our
Nation's history.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to be with the President of the
United States, along with our Governor, Congressman Jeff Miller, and
other State and local leaders, and we talked to the President about the
oilspill and what needs to be done in order to mitigate the damage that
is happening to Florida and the other Gulf States.
The most important thing I wanted to stress with the President of the
United States is that after capping the well, which is job 1--and we
have some confidence and the President reported he hopes by the end of
this month at least 90 percent of the oil will be captured from the
wellhead--but the next most important priority is keeping that oil from
coming on shore.
Right now, there is a slick of oil that is 2 miles wide and 40 miles
long. It is oil that has come up, apparently, off the bottom of the
ocean. There is this ``lava lamp'' effect that is happening now, where
the oil, depending upon the heat of the day, is sinking and rising in
the ocean. This is part of that plume that British Petroleum said did
not exist, and it is a darker and heavier oil than what we have seen
before. This is not merely the sheen that is on the top. That oil is
right off the shore of Pensacola.
We need to make sure that oil does not come ashore, does not come on
our beaches, does not get into Pensacola Bay, does not go through the
Perdido Pass, does not get into those wetlands and marshes. The best
way we can do that is to get more skimmers off the coast of Florida.
As of yesterday, there were 32 skimmers off the coast of Florida.
That is simply unacceptable. We know from Admiral Allen that there are
2,000 skimmers in the United States. I brought this point up to the
President of the United States.
Maybe all of them are not available to come to Florida. But if 500 of
them were available to come to the Gulf of Mexico, that would be a huge
improvement. There should not be 32 skimmers off the coast of Florida;
there should be hundreds of skimmers, especially with this looming
threat of this oil coming ashore.
I have asked for weeks that every skimmer that is available in this
country and every skimmer that is available around the world be on its
way to Florida. I brought up this issue with the President and Admiral
Allen. Why aren't there more skimmers? I was told that Admiral Allen is
trying to get as many as possible.
We need a sense of urgency to get those skimmers off our shores.
I asked specifically about foreign countries offering aid to bring
their skimmers to Florida and the other Gulf States and I was told that
we have help from foreign countries, but yesterday the State Department
says that 21 offers from 17 countries to bring help to Florida and the
other Gulf States have been refused. Which is it? Are they helping or
are we refusing them? We have to get that communications mishap, that
misunderstanding, under control. If the foreign countries want to bring
their skimmers here, we should welcome them, and the other equipment
they can bring to help us ameliorate this oil as it comes ashore.
I am going to stay laser focused on this. We are going to do a
skimmer watch. Every day I am here, I am going to come to the floor and
report to this Senate, this Congress, and the people of the United
States how many skimmers are off the coast of Florida. This is
something the Federal Government should do. Thirty-two skimmers sounds
as though my buddies and I got some boats out there and did it. It
doesn't sound like the Federal Government. The lives of the people of
Florida are at stake. Their businesses, their livelihoods are at stake.
I was told by the owner of the pier in Pensacola and a lady who
worked for him that people are coming to the beach in Pensacola to see
the beach one last time, as if they were visiting a friend on his or
her deathbed, because they don't think the beach is ever going to look
the same. So they are coming with their cameras and they are bringing
their children and showing them what a snow-white beach looks like
because they don't think they are going to see it again.
I have had grown men--men I have known 10, 20 years of my life,
professionals--come up to me with tears in their eyes worrying about
what this is going to mean for Florida. Ninety percent of Floridians
live within 10 miles of the coast. People move to Florida because they
love the water. We have more recreational boaters and fishermen than
any other State. We have more coastline than any State in the
continental United States. Only Alaska surpasses us in coastline. We
have more beaches than any State in the United States. Water is part of
our way of life, and we need to see a more robust effort.
I am appreciative of the President on this escrow fund he has set up,
and we have just gotten a report that BP is going to put $20 billion
into this escrow account. We have been asking for this since the
beginning of May. I am glad the President got it done. While I don't
always agree with the President, where credit is due, credit should be
given, and he should be given credit for this and getting it done. We
need those dollars to pay claims. We need those dollars because
Floridians are getting mixed results from BP about paying those claims.
So I am appreciative of the President for taking the idea, executing
it, and getting it done. Now we need to see the same attention to
detail and urgency in trying to keep that oil from coming to shore, and
I look forward to that.
We have failed from the beginning to understand the scope of this
spill. On April 23 we thought there were 200 barrels a day leaking. On
April 28 it was moved up to 5,000; May 27, 19,000; June 10, 40,000;
today, 60,000 barrels a day. Sixty thousand barrels a day leaking into
the Gulf of Mexico. That is 2\1/2\ million gallons per day; to date an
estimated 146 million gallons. We are eclipsing the Exxon Valdez each
week that goes by.
We have to stay vigilant. The President must stay involved. I hope he
will come back to Florida. We are going to look for him to lead us
through this. No one wants the President to succeed more than I do in
this particular matter because it is the livelihood of Floridians. It
is our economy and it is our environment that is at stake.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman). The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Thune
amendment.
In a few weeks we will celebrate our Nation's birthday. I find it
ironic that 234 years after our forefathers first led the fight for
independence with the battle cry of ``no taxation without
representation,'' I am hearing similar protests from Missourians today.
Their frustration is not only understandable, it is warranted.
Missourians and, I believe, Americans in every State across our
Nation have said: No more. They have said no to runaway spending. They
have said no to more big government policies. Failing to represent
these views, the majority in Congress has fallen down on the job.
It is no wonder that Americans feel as though Washington is not
listening since my friends on the other side of the aisle are asking us
to ignore our Nation's $13 trillion debt, the largest in our Nation's
history, and pass a bill that would add nearly another $79 billion to
the deficit.
But there is a better way. There is a more responsible way. My
colleague from South Dakota, Senator Thune, has offered a substitute
amendment that is paid for--paid for--cuts the deficit by $68 billion,
and includes all the major priorities agreed to on a bipartisan basis
by Democrats and Republicans.
In the Thune substitute, of which I am a proud cosponsor, we have a
real opportunity to show the American people that we in Washington are
listening. We have an opportunity to show the American people we are
serious about addressing the most severe financial crisis this country
has ever faced, and we have an opportunity for a rare moment of
bipartisanship which, in recent years, has become all too uncommon in
this body.
As does the proposal from Senator Baucus, the Republican alternative
extends expiring unemployment benefits
[[Page S4967]]
for struggling families until November; and as does the Baucus bill,
the Republican alternative extends tax breaks to small businesses which
they so desperately need to get back on their feet and start creating
jobs. We need to assure them the longstanding tax benefits they depend
on will continue.
However, unlike the Baucus bill which the majority is using as a
vehicle to increase taxes permanently, increase spending and increase
the deficit, the Republican alternative cuts taxes even more by an
additional $26 billion, cuts spending by over $100 billion and,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduces--reduces--the
deficit by $68 billion, instead of increasing it.
The Thune amendment also stops the cuts to doctors and provides a 2-
percent increase in Medicare reimbursement payments that go to doctors
this year, and an additional 2 percent in 2011 and 2012. That is one
more year than the doc fix in the Baucus bill, and it is actually paid
for, not put on our children's credit cards.
I have heard from doctors across Missouri and they can no longer face
the devastating cuts that threaten their livelihood and threaten our
seniors' access to care. They are telling me they are going to have to
stop taking Medicare patients, because the way Medicare is implemented
now, they only get 80 percent of what it costs them to provide the
service and they are saying, We just can't cut any more--we can't take
any more Medicare patients. Hospitals are saying the same thing. That
is before the half trillion dollar cut in Medicare reimbursement comes
in. It perplexes me that the majority has not addressed that problem in
what they told us was a comprehensive health care law.
Something else that was largely left out of the new health care bill
was malpractice reform. The Thune amendment corrects this oversight and
enacts comprehensive medical malpractice reform that will save up to
$49 billion over 10 years.
My friend from Montana, Senator Baucus, takes the opposite approach.
The bill he and the majority leader are asking us to support increases
spending by $126 billion, including over $70 billion in new and
permanent tax increases, and will increase the deficit by $79 billion
over the next 10 years. The Baucus-Reid bill is exactly the kind of
approach that history has shown us won't work and the American people
have told us they don't want.
The American people have had it with Washington-gone-wild policies.
They have had enough of the spending, the tax increases, the debt, the
bailouts, the big government job-killing policies that have been pushed
through Congress and have been supported by the administration. Today,
the Republican alternative offers the majority an opportunity to
reverse course, to end the out-of-control spending and get serious
about fiscal responsibility.
When facing a crisis, words mean very little. To say you are
concerned about the debt while voting to increase it means very little
to our children and grandchildren who will have that bill on their
credit cards and will have to foot the bill in the future. As the old
country and western song goes: We need a little less talk and a lot
more action. The Thune amendment offers us a real chance to bring
sanity back to Washington policies and for Members of this body to show
the American people they are serious about meeting needs while also
addressing our growing deficit.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Thune amendment
and, after months of ignoring them, finally demonstrate to the American
people that, yes, we are listening to them, we are concerned, we are
going to do something about the debt, the deficit, and the other
problems this country faces.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________