[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.

                          ____________________