[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 162 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8662-S8668]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEVELOPMENT, RELIEF, AND EDUCATION FOR ALIEN MINORS ACT OF 2010--MOTION
TO PROCEED
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume
consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 3992, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 663 (S. 3992) to
authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment of
status of certain alien students who are long-term United
States residents and who entered the United States as
children, and for other purposes.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed as in morning business for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Defense Authorization
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we have enacted the National Defense
Authorization Act every year for the last 48 years. We need to do the
same thing this year.
This year's bill would continue the increases in compensation and
quality of life that our service men and women and their families
deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military
operations around the world.
For example, the bill would extend over 30 types of bonuses and
special pays aimed at encouraging enlistment, reenlistment, and
continued service by active-duty and reserve military personnel.
The bill would authorize continued TRICARE coverage for eligible
dependents of servicemembers up to the age of 26.
The bill will improve care for our wounded warriors by addressing
inequities in rules for involuntary administrative separations based on
medical conditions and requiring new education and training programs on
the use of pharmaceuticals for patients in wounded warrior units, and
it will authorize the service secretaries to waive maximum age
limitations to enable certain highly qualified enlisted members who
served in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to
enter the military service academies.
The bill would also include important funding and authorities needed
to provide our troops the equipment and support that they will continue
to need as long as they remain on the battlefield in Iraq and
Afghanistan. For example, the bill would enhance the military's ability
to rapidly acquire and field new capabilities in response to urgent
needs on the battlefield by expanding DOD's authority to waive
statutory requirements when urgently needed to save lives on the
battlefield.
The bill will fully fund the President's request for $11.6 billion to
train and equip the Afghan National Army and Afghan police--growing the
capabilities of these security forces to prepare them to take over
increased responsibilities for Afghanistan's security by the July 2011
date established by the President for the beginning of reductions in
U.S. forces at that time.
The bill will extend for one more year the authority for the
Secretary of Defense to transfer equipment coming out of Iraq as our
troops withdraw to the security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan,
providing an important tool for our commanders looking to accelerate
the growth and capability of these security forces.
The bill also includes important legislative provisions that would
promote the Department of Defense cybersecurity and energy security
efforts--two far-reaching initiatives that should help strengthen our
national defense and our Nation.
If we fail to act on this bill, we will not be able to provide the
Department of Defense with critical new authorities and extensions of
existing authorities that it needs to safeguard our national security.
For example, without this bill, the Department of Defense will either
lose the authority it has requested to support counter-drug activities
of foreign governments, use premium pay to encourage civilian employees
to accept dangerous assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
[[Page S8663]]
provide assistance to the Yemeni counterterrorism unit. A failure by
the Senate to provide these important authorities could have serious
consequences for the success or failure of ongoing military operations
around the world.
I recognize this bill includes a handful of contentious provisions on
which there is disagreement in the Senate. Some of those provisions I
support and others I objected to and voted against in committee.
One of those provisions is the one that would repeal don't ask, don't
tell 60 days after the President, the Secretary of Defense, and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certify to Congress that
implementation of repeal is consistent with the standards of military
readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and
retention in the Armed Forces.
The Armed Services Committee held two excellent hearings last week to
consider the final report of the working group that reviewed the issues
associated with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.
The report concluded that allowing gay men and women to serve in the
U.S. Armed Forces without being forced to conceal their sexual
orientation would present a low risk to the military effectiveness,
even during a time of war, and that 70 percent of surveyed
servicemembers believe that the impact on their units would be
positive, mixed, or of no consequence at all.
General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified that the
presumption underpinning don't ask, don't tell is that ``the presence
of a gay or lesbian servicemember in a unit causes an unacceptable risk
to good order and discipline.'' Then he said, ``After reading this
report, I don't believe that's true anymore, and I don't believe a
substantial majority of our soldiers believe that's true.''
After considering the report, Secretary of Defense Gates urged
Congress to pass this legislation this year, so that the repeal of
don't ask, don't tell could be implemented in a well-prepared and well-
considered manner, rather than by abrupt judicial fiat, which he
described as ``by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario [he]
can imagine.''
To the extent that some of the service chiefs expressed concern about
the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, their concerns focused on the
timing of the repeal and adequacy of time to prepare for
implementation, rather than on repeal itself. Secretary Gates testified
that he ``would not make his certification until [he] was satisfied,
with the advice of the service chiefs, that we had in fact mitigated,
if not eliminated to the extent possible, risks to combat readiness, to
unit cohesion and effectiveness.'' All of the service chiefs testified
that they were comfortable with the ability to provide military advice
to Secretary Gates and have that advice heard.
The only method of repeal that places the timing of the repeal and
the control of implementation in the hands of the military and the
Department of Defense is the provision contained in this bill. By
contrast, if don't ask, don't tell is repealed by a court decision, the
service chiefs will have no influence over the timing of repeal or the
implementation of the repeal.
Despite differing views over this and other provisions where there
are differences of opinion, we should not deny the Senate the
opportunity to take up this bill, which is so essential for the men and
women in the military, because we disagree with some provisions of the
bill. These are legitimate issues for debate, and I believe the Senate
should debate this. But the only way we can debate and vote on these
issues is if the Senate proceeds to the bill. The disputed provisions
can be addressed through the amendment process.
Madam President, as you well know, this is a crucial matter for
resolution. Our Presiding Officer has played an instrumental role in
getting the don't ask, don't tell issue before this body and before the
country. I commend her for that. We need to resolve it. The only way to
resolve it is to get to the bill.
We currently have 50,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines
on the ground in Iraq and roughly twice that many in Afghanistan. While
there are some issues on which we may disagree, we all know that we
must provide our troops with the support they need as long as they
remain in harm's way. Senate action on the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 will improve the quality of life
of our men and women in uniform. It will give them the tools they need
to remain the most effective fighting force in the world. Most
important of all, it will send an important message that we, as a
nation, stand behind them and appreciate their service.
This bill runs some 850 pages. The House bill--the counterpart bill--
runs more than a thousand pages. Even if we get 60 votes today to
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, and even if we
are able to consider amendments and pass this bill in a few days, it
will be possibly an insurmountable challenge to work out all of the
differences with the House. Over the last 10 years, it has taken an
average of 75 days to conference the Defense authorization bill with
the House after we pass it. If we don't proceed on this bill this week,
then invoking cloture sometime next week--even if we can do it--would
be a symbolic victory. I don't believe there would be enough time to
hammer out a final bill before the end of the session.
I don't believe in symbolic victories. This bill is a victory for the
people in uniform. It is essential for the people in uniform. We should
not act symbolically in their name and for their sake; we should act in
reality. But the only way this will be real, and that the repeal of
don't ask, don't tell--assuming we continue to keep it in the bill--
will be real is if we proceed to this bill this week. We cannot and
should not delay this vote any longer.
I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent that the time on the
quorum that I will call for be equally divided between both sides.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to speak on a bill that the
Chair has spearheaded the charge for--and done it with such hard work
and determination and commitment and vigor--and that is the bill to
provide health care for our 9/11 heroes, those men and women who at a
time of war rushed to danger to save lives and protect our freedom.
We have met with these brave men and women repeatedly. Some of them
are suffering already with cancers they acquired for their acts of
bravery. Others know it is an almost certainty that they will come down
with similar diseases and illnesses that are extremely costly to fight.
Madam President, we have had a grand tradition in America: Those who
risk their lives to protect us and volunteer to do it under no
compunction, we remember them when they get hurt in that brave
endeavors. We do it for our veterans and we should be doing it for our
9/11 heroes--the first responders, the police, the firefighters, the
EMT workers, the construction workers, and the ordinary citizens who
rushed into danger at a time when no one knew how many people might be
living and entrapped in those collapsed towers.
I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, this
should not be a moment of politics. One can come up with reason after
reason why not to vote for this bill, and we have heard many and the
reasons keep changing. But one fact doesn't change: There are those who
need help and who deserve our help--from New York, New Jersey,
Connecticut, and from every other State of the Union. To them, a
parliamentary decision that we can't vote on this because there is
another bill we want to vote on first, because we would change this or
that, is going to ring very hollow.
This should not be a partisan issue. This should be an issue where
America unites. When it comes to helping our veterans, we are united.
That is not a Democratic or Republican issue. That
[[Page S8664]]
is not a northeast or southwest issue. It is an issue of being an
American. This vote is about being an American because from the days at
Bunker Hill, when the patriots put down their plows and took up muskets
to defend and create our freedom, we have always tried to take care of
them, and we have done it better and better for our veterans. The
heroes of 9/11 are no different.
So I beg, I plead, I implore two brave colleagues from the other side
to join us. Put aside the political considerations. Remember what these
people did for us. You have seen them when they have visited your
offices, the suffering, all for an act of voluntary heroism. They are
not asking for welfare. They are not asking for a huge handout. They
are simply asking that they be able to meet the high health care costs
that occur when you develop cancers and other illnesses because
particles of glass and cement and other materials get lodged in your
lungs or your gastrointestinal tract.
So this is our last call. It is a plea. We will keep at this, but
today is the day to step to the plate. I urge my colleagues to please
support those brave men and women who were there for us--for America.
Do not come up with an excuse as to why you cannot do it. We have
marched and marched and marched, and this is the finish line. Help us
get over it, please.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to speak on the two pending
votes before the Senate. First, I wish to follow my distinguished
colleague from New York, whose comments I want to echo regarding the
Presiding Officer, who has made this one of her passions. She picked it
up when I first introduced the James Zadroga Act and then took it up
when she came to the Senate and has done a magnificent job and brought
us to this moment.
Jim Zadroga was a New Jerseyan who spent 450 hours at the World Trade
Center site--a New York City police officer who simply had a paper mask
on as his only protection. He and so many others who answered on that
fateful day did not question their personal security, did not give it a
second thought. They did not think about their health, did not think
about the potential consequences that would flow from the exposure to
which they were subjecting themselves. They thought only about
responding, saving lives, and meeting the Nation's need--the Nation's
need, not New York's need. For Jim Zadroga and so many others, the
consequence of that selflessness has been enormous. In many cases, they
have died. In other cases, they have serious life-threatening
illnesses. In other cases, they have real disabilities as a result of
those illnesses.
I remember on that day, after the attacks on September 11, how we
came together on the Capitol steps and we declared our commitment of
love of country and a commitment to those who died on that fateful day,
to their families, and to those who responded. I remember the
incredible words--glowing, soaring--that were spoken about the bravery
of those men and women who responded from all over the country.
Those who are the victims of the exposure they received on the ground
on September 11 come from every State in the Union. This is not simply
a New York issue or a New Jersey issue, where so many of our first
responders came from. These are individuals who came from across the
country, who came together as Americans to respond on that fateful day.
This requires each and every one of us in the Senate to respond to all
of those Americans from every State who ultimately find themselves,
through their selflessness, exposed to life-threatening illnesses. A
grateful nation not only joins together in commemoration on September
11 of each year but a grateful nation shows its gratitude to those who
answered the call without concern for their well-being by how we take
care of their health care, how we take care of their disabilities, and
how we take care of the families of those who ultimately lost their
lives in service to the country.
This is no different than the men and women who wear the uniform of
the United States and go abroad to defend the Nation. These men and
women wore uniforms too. Some of them wore the uniform of a police
officer, some of them wore the uniform of a firefighter, some wore the
uniform of emergency management personnel. Some of them, ultimately,
were first-aid squads. But all of them on those fateful days wore a
uniform that served the Nation. How can the Nation forget them now?
That is what this vote is all about.
I cannot accept as a moral equivalent that some oath not to vote on
those who serve the country, risk their lives, cannot take place
because of some vote on some tax issue. No one in the Nation would
believe that it is OK to say: I will not vote to give relief to the
health of those individuals who sacrificed their health on September 11
and the days after because I have to wait for some pending tax vote.
Go back to the men and women who serve this country and look at them
in their eyes and tell them it is some vote that we are waiting for on
taxes that determines whether their health needs will be responded to.
Shameless. I can't wait to see, when one of us stands for one of those
pictures on the commemoration of September 11, the comments about how
heroic those individuals were but cannot cast a simple vote.
The DREAM Act
Finally, I want to move to the question of the DREAM Act. On the
DREAM Act, the House of Representatives took a critical step yesterday
in making a reality of the dreams and hopes and aspirations of young
people who know nothing but this country as their country. They made no
choices in their lives to come to the United States. Those choices were
made by their parents. All they know is that they stand every day as
young students and pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America. All they know is the national anthem of the United States.
All they know is they worked hard and became salutatorians,
valedictorians, and done everything we expect of any one of us,
particularly of our children, to try to excel and exceed.
Overwhelmingly, they have excelled and exceeded. Yet their dream of
being able to continue to exceed and excel on behalf of the Nation is
blunted by the fact that they have an undocumented status in this
country through no fault of their own.
The DREAM Act says if you are willing to wear the uniform and serve
in the Armed Forces of the United States, and you serve honorably for 2
years, we will give you a pathway toward permanent residency. If you go
to college--assuming that you ultimately qualify, that you are
accepted, and that you do well--we will give you a pathway to permanent
residency. We will adjust your status and permit that dream to take
place.
This is not amnesty. Amnesty--which I have heard some of my
colleagues use, and they will use it on anything that is immigration
related. Right away they roll out the word ``amnesty.'' Amnesty is when
you get something for nothing; when you did something wrong and you
have to pay no consequence. In this case I believe wearing the uniform
of the U.S. Armed Forces, risking your life for your country, maybe
losing that life before you achieve your goal and your dream, is not
amnesty. I believe working hard and being educated so you can help fuel
the Nation's prosperity and meet its economic challenge, that is not
amnesty. That is paying your dues on behalf of the country. For if you
do all of that, you still have to wait a decade before your status can
be adjusted to permanent residency. So you have to be an exemplary
citizen, you have to do everything that is right, everything we cherish
in America. That is what the DREAM Act is all about and that is why the
Secretary of Defense has come out in strong support of the DREAM Act.
That is why Colin Powell came out in support of the DREAM Act. That is
why the Under Secretary, Personnel and Readiness at the Department of
Defense during the Bush administration, David Chu, came out and said
this is, in essence, the very effort we would like to see.
[For] many of these young people . . . the DREAM Act would
provide the opportunity of serving the United States in
uniform.
Moreover, university presidents, respected education associations,
leading Fortune 500 businesses, such as Microsoft, also support this
legislation. Mike Huckabee explained the economic sense of allowing
undocumented children to earn their way.
[[Page S8665]]
Let's not stop young men and women who know only this country as
their country, who made no choices on their own. Let's be family-
friendly. Let's observe the values. Let's pass the DREAM Act today.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask to be notified after 4 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the military has a very fine program
now that allows people legally and illegally in the United States to
join the military and put themselves on a pathway to citizenship. The
fact is, in this bill, as it is going to work out in reality, 95
percent, probably 98 percent of the people who take advantage of this
amnesty that puts them on a guaranteed path to citizenship will do so
by claiming they have a high school degree. They can be up to 30 years
of age. They claim they have a high school degree and then do 2 years
of community college or even correspondence college work. That is where
this huge loophole is and that is why we will have 1 to 2 million
people who are going to seek protection under this act.
What is this about? The American people understand it. They have
tried to tell this Congress, but the Congress and the political
leadership refuse to listen. What they are saying is do not continue to
reward illegality. Do not continue to provide benefits for people who
violated our law, please. The first thing you do is don't reward it.
The second thing you want to do is to end the mass illegality that is
occurring in our country--600,000 people were arrested last year trying
to enter our country illegally at the border--600,000. This is a huge
problem.
This administration sued Arizona when it tried to do something about
it. They have ended workplace raids that would have identified people
who were working illegally and provide Americans an opportunity to have
a job. This bill will cost $5 billion according to the CBO. It is not
going to pay for itself, and it allows people with two misdemeanors--if
you only have two misdemeanors you can apply. Many people, if you know
much about the law enforcement system in the country, plead to lesser
offenses when they really are guilty of more serious offenses. A lot of
these misdemeanors are very serious offenses themselves. They will be
given the advantage of this act.
It is not set up for military, it is not set up for valedictorians
and salutatorians, it is not set up for people going to Harvard. It is
set up for people who have come into the country, can be brought in
illegally as a teenager, they go to high school--they have to be
accepted. They get a GED or get a high school degree, and they apply
and have a safe harbor in our country indefinitely.
I introduced yesterday a chart showing a Google page with a whole
long list of places you can order false high school diplomas, false
transcripts, false GED certificates. There are no people funded to
investigate any of this. People are going to walk in and say: I am 30
years old and I came at age 16. I'm in.
Who is going to go out and investigate that? Nobody is. There is no
funding to do it, and there is no plan to do it. It is a major
loophole.
But, fundamentally, I would say this Nation will be prepared, as a
nation, to wrestle with and try to do the right thing about people who
have been here a long time and who came here as a young person. But let
me tell you, not until this country brings the lawlessness to an end,
that is what the American people have told us unequivocally. They shut
down our switchboards with so many phone calls not too long ago when we
tried to pass amnesty here. We do not need to do this. Why don't we do
the responsible thing?
Finally, let me say this illegality can be ended. It is within our
grasp if we have leadership from the top and leadership in the Congress
and leadership from the President.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has consumed his 4
minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Chair. I say we have not had that
leadership. What happens 3 years from now when we have another group
that has come illegally at age 15 or 16 because they have seen what
happens to the ones who came before? Are we then going to say they
don't get amnesty? No. We will have lost the moral high ground, the
right, responsible effort to have a lawful system in America. We are
surrendering to it if we vote for this bill.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to engage in a
colloquy with my colleagues.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. As Members of this body know, for the past 9 months I
have come to the floor every week to offer a doctor's second opinion on
the new health care law. I do this as someone who has practiced
medicine, taken care of families around the State of Wyoming for a
quarter of a century.
Each week I repeatedly criticize another one of the unintended
consequences of this health care law, a law that I think is bad for
patients, bad for providers--the nurses and the doctors who take care
of those patients--and bad for the taxpayers.
Americans heard how this law breaks most of the President's promises
about health care reform. That is why, on election day, Americans
across our country spoke out. They called on Washington to work to
repeal and replace this law. The Republicans have answered. We realize
we cannot just object to the law, we must do our best to repeal and
replace it. That is why I am delighted this morning to be joined on the
floor by Senator Wicker from Mississippi. He is joining me to talk
about his new bill that he is introducing today that will allow State
officials to challenge Federal regulations before these regulations
actually go into effect. This will allow States to fight back against
outrageous health care regulations that continue to be written.
With that, I would like to ask my colleague if he would please share
with the body and with the country the remarkable bill that he is
introducing today.
Mr. WICKER. I thank my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, a
practicing physician in his own right. I thank my friend for repeatedly
coming to the floor and simply bringing the facts to the attention of
our membership and to the American people.
This was an unpopular piece of legislation when we were considering
it. We wasted most of a year when we should have been talking about job
creation and the economy, talking about the overhaul of our entire
health care system with the ObamaCare proposal. It was unpopular when
it was enacted. It was unpopular when it was signed into law. We saw
that in election after election, the two elections in New Jersey and
Virginia. We saw it in spades in the Massachusetts election where it
was the central issue. But this Congress persisted against the will of
the American people.
Because of the facts as presented by Dr. Barrasso and also the facts
that are coming to light as the people are finding out in their own
lives with their own insurance policies, this law is even more
unpopular and more unsatisfactory than it was at the very beginning,
and it should be repealed lock, stock, and barrel. It should be
defunded and it should be replaced by something market driven and
something workable.
In an additional attempt to address this very wrongheaded piece of
legislation, a few moments ago I introduced the Tenth Amendment
Regulatory Reform Act. To remind my colleagues, the tenth amendment to
the Constitution explicitly states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This amendment, this part of the Bill of Rights, expressly limits the
powers of the Federal Government for important reasons.
When we look back to the early days of the United States, it is clear
that the Founding Fathers believed in a limited Federal Government,
having just defeated a monarchy with near absolute power. Our Founders
sought a different way of governing, one based on controlled size and
scope.
Our Founding Fathers repeatedly stated their opposition to a Federal
[[Page S8666]]
Government with expansive powers. In Federalist No. 45, James Madison
wrote:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
Federal Government are few and defined.
When have we heard that last?
He goes on to say:
Those which are to remain in State government are numerous
and indefinite.
This may come as a surprise to people who have viewed the Congress of
the United States in the past few years. Madison wrote, ``few and
defined.'' Dispute this fact, congressional limits on the Federal
Government are rarely enforced today. I hope to change this through my
legislation.
Federal agencies routinely usurp the rights of States by promulgating
regulations that are contrary to the spirit and the letter of the 10th
amendment to the Constitution. The Code of Federal Regulations now
totals an expansive 163,333 pages. While some of the rules contained in
it are necessary, many of them simply are not--adding burdens,
headaches, and costs for millions of Americans and forcing unnecessary
Federal spending at a time when the United States borrows 40 cents for
each dollar we spend. These rules and regulations also take power from
States and they take power from individual Americans. This bill would
allow States to challenge unconstitutional mandates before these
mandates take effect.
Much of the new health care law gives unelected bureaucrats the power
to write rules and regulations required to implement ObamaCare.
Overall, the new health care law creates 159 bureaucracies, according
to a study by the Joint Economic Council. Countless Federal regulations
will have to be written to implement the law.
A requirement for Americans to purchase government-approved health
insurance--a central piece of ObamaCare--explicitly oversteps the 10th
amendment. Under no other circumstances do we force individuals to pay
for something they may not want or cannot afford, simply because they
are Americans, which is what this law attempts to do.
Many rules and regulations will be required to implement this
provision. According to one analysis, the Internal Revenue Service will
need to hire 16,000 new IRS employees to enforce this individual
mandate. Each of those bureaucrats will be governed by agency rules
created in the coming months and years, and we read in the paper today
that it may even be decades before all of these rules will be created.
Once these regulations are written, it will again require costly and
time-consuming court proceedings to overturn them. Instead of forcing
the American people to wait for a remedy, we should have agencies
address these problems at the outset. This bill would go a long way
toward doing that. It would provide special standing for designated
State government officials to dispute regulations issued by
administration agencies attempting to implement new Federal laws or
Presidential Executive orders. Under the legislation, any rule proposed
by a Federal agency would be subject to constitutional challenges if
certain State officials determine the rule infringes on powers reserved
to the States under the 10th amendment.
States are already challenging the massive Federal takeover in court
because of the mandates on both States and individuals. I am proud to
say that 43 of the 50 States have either joined lawsuits or taken other
official action to stop its unconstitutional provisions. This bill
would give State officials another tool at their disposal to challenge
the unconstitutional overreach of the Federal Government.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this legislation. It is late in
this Congress, but there is another one looming with reinforcements
coming from the people.
I appreciate my colleague allowing me to join him today in this
discussion of a doctor's second opinion.
Mr. BARRASSO. Well, I am very impressed by what the Senator have come
up with. This leadership position takes that next step forward to
protect our rights that he and I believe are in the Constitution and
apply to the people of our States and apply to the people of this
country.
One would hope everyone would join in, and I ask unanimous consent to
be added as an original cosponsor of this legislation.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BARRASSO. The Senator mentioned the unelected bureaucrats in our
comments. There was a story today in the New York Times. I would like
to ask a couple of questions of the Senator from that story because I
think it gets to the point he is making. This was by Eric Lichtblau and
Robert Pear.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record this story from today's New York Times.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Dec. 8, 2010]
Washington Rule Makers Out of the Shadows
(By Eric Lichtblau and Robert Pear)
Washington.--Federal rule makers, long the neglected
stepchildren of Washington bureaucrats, suddenly find
themselves at the center of power as they scramble to work
out details of hundreds of sweeping financial and health care
regulations that will ultimately affect most Americans.
In Bethesda, Md., more than 200 health regulators working
on complicated insurance rules have taken over three floors
of a suburban office building, paying almost double the
market rate for the space in their rush to get started.
Executives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been
meeting almost daily with financial rule makers to air
concerns about regulations they say threaten to curtail
commerce.
And at the White House, senior officials receive several
status reports a week on a process that all sides agree has
vast implications for the country as a whole and for the
Obama administration's political fortunes.
The boom in rule-making--the bureaucratic term for the
nitty-gritty of drafting regulations--is a result of the
mega-bills approved by Congress this year at the urging of
President Obama: the health care bill signed into law in
March, and the financial overhaul law signed in July.
``There has never been a period like what we are going
through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of
rule-making,'' said Paul Dennett, senior vice president of
the American Benefits Council, a trade group for large
employers.
And what was already shaping up as a rancorous lobbying
battle over the rules is likely to become more contentious
when Republicans take control of the House, having been swept
to power on a pledge to influence health care and financial
regulation.
At the very least, Republicans will be able to hold public
hearings to spotlight financial regulations they see as too
restrictive and health care rules they see as too disruptive,
and they could pressure regulators to soften them.
The debate over federal spending has already slowed the
development of financial rules, as hundreds of new rule-
making positions have gone unfilled because of a lack of new
financing.
Congress provided a road map for measures aimed broadly at
getting more Americans covered by health insurance and
providing more federal safeguards against risky financial
practices. But the laws were so broad and complex that
executive-branch regulators have wide leeway in determining
what the rules should say and how they should be carried out.
In all, the bills call for drafting more than 300 separate
rules on a rolling schedule by about 2014, plus dozens of
other studies and periodic reports. That may be only the
beginning. A recent report from the Congressional Research
Service said the publication of rules under the health care
law could stretch out for decades to come.
Regulators at various agencies are trying to answer
questions like these:
How much should a credit-card company be able to charge a
shopkeeper for administrative fees when you swipe your card
for a purchase?
Which types of financial companies are so ``systemically
important'' to the overall economy that they should be
subject to greater federal oversight?
What services must be covered by all insurers as part of
the ``essential health benefits'' package? And at what point
would an increase in an insurer's premiums be considered so
``unreasonable'' that state and federal regulators could step
in?
These and many other questions are now in the hands of
government lawyers, doctors, bankers, accountants, actuaries
and other regulatory specialists. With the rules spread
across agencies, no one is certain how many employees are
working on them, but the number is certainly in the hundreds
or higher.
At the Federal Reserve, for instance, most of more than 50
lawyers in the legal division are now spending significant
parts of their days on rule-making issues, like the question
of how to carry out and enforce the so-called Volcker Rule,
named for Paul A. Volcker, the former Fed chairman,
restricting banks from making certain types of speculative
investments.
No longer are these considered arcane questions that draw
scrutiny only from the few Washingtonians who read the
``notices of
[[Page S8667]]
proposed rule-making'' in the Federal Register.
These days, the rule makers are attracting attention from
Congressional officials, industry advocates and lobbyists,
with dozens of executives from firms like Goldman Sachs,
Mastercard, JPMorgan Chase and Credit Suisse meeting with
federal regulators recently to give input on specific rules
and try to influence the outcome, according to public online
postings by federal regulators on many of the meetings.
``I wake up in the morning thinking about this stuff, and I
go to sleep at night thinking about it,'' said Tom Quaadman,
a senior Chamber of Commerce executive who is leading a group
of 10 staff members seeking to shape the financial rules.
The discussions are in the early stages.
But though all sides talk of finding consensus, conflicts
have emerged.
The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable, made
up of leading chief executives, are suing the Securities and
Exchange Commission, arguing that a rule giving proxy access
on corporate boards to small shareholders did not get a
proper review and would undermine companies.
When these issues still rested with Congress this year, the
chamber spent millions on glitzy advertisements opposing the
health care and financial regulation. The chamber does not
plan anything so showy as the debate shifts to the regulatory
agencies, but is bracing for a long fight filled with low-key
meetings and court filings.
``It's a substantial amount of resources we've brought to
bear on this,'' Mr. Quaadman said. ``We've always seen this
as being a marathon. This is a process that's going to take
years, and this is the start of the race.''
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by
Congress as part of the financial overhaul, has been the
target of particularly intense lobbying, with industry
representatives and consumer advocates trying to shape the
agency's structure and mission.
Questions about the agency's allegiances have already
arisen, however, after it was disclosed that Elizabeth
Warren, the White House aide chosen to start up the agency,
had worked as a consultant on a lawsuit involving major banks
and credit-card companies and that one of her senior aides
had worked previously at a mortgage company with a spotty
record.
So far, health care regulators have a head start on their
financial counterparts. They not only started the process
four months earlier when the health care bill passed
Congress, but they also have the advantage of already
securing start-up funds for rule-making personnel and office
space.
In Bethesda, health care officials are leasing more than
70,000 square feet of space on three floors of an office
building for about 230 employees to work on rule-making and
other duties. The government agreed to pay $51.41 per usable
square foot of space, compared with an average of $27 in
Bethesda, because it wanted to get the operation running in
July, officials said.
In contrast, financial regulators have been unable to get
new financing for hundreds of additional rule makers because
Congress has not yet passed a budget, and they are largely
making do by reassigning existing staff members. Officials at
agencies like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which
is responsible for drafting more than 60 rules, are warning
that there is an urgent need for the money.
Annette L. Nazareth, a former S.E.C. official who now
represents financial clients before rule makers as a lawyer
for the firm of Davis Polk, said short staffing and ``wildly
unrealistic'' deadlines set by Congress threatened the entire
process.
``These regulators are overwhelmed, and this stuff is being
churned out on issues that are enormously complex,'' Ms.
Nazareth said. ``It's very bad for the markets to do it this
way, and it's bound to have an impact on how things come
out.''
Mr. BARRASSO. It talks about Federal rulemakers. That is whom I
believe we are talking about, these unelected bureaucrats.
Federal rule makers, long the neglected stepchildren of
Washington bureaucrats, suddenly find themselves at the
center of power--
The bureaucrats--
as they scramble to work out details of hundreds of sweeping
financial and health care regulations that will ultimately
affect most Americans.
We are talking about not just the health care law but also the
financial regulations.
The one part I want to ask the Senator about says:
But the laws were so broad and complex that executive-
branch regulators will have wide leeway in determining what
the rules should say and how they should be carried out.
Well, isn't that why we need this piece of legislation--to let the
States get in there before some of these rules and regulations are put
onto the people of Mississippi, the people of Wyoming, the people all
across the country?
Mr. WICKER. Well, the Senator is absolutely correct. And this coming
from the New York Times in particular, this article is an astounding
bit of information for the American people, and they need to know about
it. I think the American people have the quaint idea that their elected
officials, both in the executive branch and in the legislative branch,
should be the center of power. I did not come to Washington to be
powerful. But at least I have to stand before my constituents every so
often and get their approval. What this article says is that the
bureaucrats are now at the center of power because of this ObamaCare
legislation and the financial services legislation.
We have enacted, over my vote and over the vote of the Senator from
Wyoming, a 2,700-page health care overhaul. Yet we are told the main
thing it does is empower bureaucrats and make them the decisionmakers.
Certainly, if this is the result of this unfortunate piece of
legislation, a Governor or a speaker of the house of representatives at
the State level ought to be able to quickly and expeditiously go to
Federal court and say: Wait a minute, this violates the 10th amendment.
All we are saying is that they need a path to go quickly to the Federal
courts and challenge this.
I am sure the Senator noticed this--this is just one example. In
neighboring Bethesda, MD, this new ObamaCare law has resulted in 200
health regulators rushing to a new facility there and paying twice the
fair market value. This is Uncle Sugar coming in. They can pay as much
money as they want. So they pay twice the fair market value in rent,
and they have taken over three floors of a suburban office building to
begin getting started on actually writing the rules that will apply
this Federal mandate to the people. It is amazing.
You know, actually, I will say this to my friend: When we talk about
defunding the Federal Government, I would like for our Appropriations
Committees, our investigative committees, both House and Senate, to
look at how they got the right to pay twice the fair market value.
Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it is astonishing. I know the people of Wyoming
as well as the people of Mississippi always oppose Washington's
wasteful spending, but when I read that the health care officials are
leasing more than 70,000 square feet of space on three floors of this
office building in Bethesda for 230 employees, rushing to rulemaking,
and see that the government--Washington--agreed to pay over $51 per
usable square foot, compared with the average of less than $30 a square
foot in Bethesda--why? Because it wanted to get the operation running
in July. They were rushing to get to this.
But it says that this may only be the beginning. This may only be the
beginning. A recent report--not by my colleague from Mississippi and
not by me but by the Congressional Research Service--says that the
publication of rules under the health care law could stretch out for
decades to come.
That is why I am going to cosponsor this legislation. I have great
concern about States rights and individual rights being trampled on by
a Washington government that is out of control in terms of spending,
and it is doing it in spite of the cries of the American people.
So I congratulate and compliment my colleague from Mississippi for
bringing this piece of legislation to the Senate today and thank him
for joining me on the floor as part of a doctor's second opinion
because you don't have to be a doctor to know that this health care law
is not good for patients, it is not good for providers, it is not good
for taxpayers. As more and more people see the rules and the
regulations come, they will once again see the broken promises by this
President, who said: If you like your health care program, you get to
keep it, and then they turn 2 pages in the rules and regulations into
121 pages which said, for many people in this country, they are not
going to be able to keep what they have, they are not going to be able
to keep what has been promised them, and it is because the rules and
the regulations are so complicated. And the rulemaking continues.
Mr. WICKER. If I might add, this is really a new chapter in the
history of the American Federal Government. According to the senior
vice president of the American Benefits Council:
[[Page S8668]]
There has never been a period like what we are going
through now, in terms of the sheer volume and complexity of
rule-making.
My friend, this is unprecedented in American history. The scope, the
cost, the magnitude of this legislation is unprecedented, according to
the American Benefits Council. And the point of my bill is that that
does violence to the Bill of Rights, it does violence to the intent of
the Founding Fathers that the Federal Government be limited in its
power and scope and that we leave most of the rights we are endowed
with by our creators to the people and to the States themselves. So it
is a great privilege to join my colleague today in making this point.
Mr. BARRASSO. With that, I thank and congratulate my colleague for
his vision and his foresight and his leadership because this is, I
believe, how the Founding Fathers would have seen it. I believe those
who wrote the Constitution would be on board with this piece of
legislation to say, as the 10th amendment does say, ``The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people.''
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bingaman.) The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to
3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I come to the floor to strongly urge my
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to oppose cloture on the so-
called DREAM Act. That will be one of our votes in a few minutes. All
these votes are important. That is the most important.
The reasons we should oppose cloture are simple and basic. They all
go to this past election. They all ask the question: Have we been
listening at all to the American people? The American people have been
speaking loudly and clearly on issues that pertain to the DREAM Act. I
point to three in particular.
No. 1, the DREAM Act is a major amnesty provision. There are no two
ways about it. It grants at least 2.1 million illegals amnesty. It puts
them on a path toward citizenship, which will also allow them to have
their family members put in legal status. That means when we count all
those people, there are probably two to three times that initial 2.1
million people who will be granted some form of amnesty. When we are
not securing our borders adequately, when we are not putting a system
in place to enforce workplace security, that is absolutely wrong.
No. 2, we are in the middle of a serious recession. The American
people are hurting. Things such as slots at public colleges and
universities, things such as financial aid for those positions are very
scarce and very sought after, more than ever before, because of the
horrible state of the economy. These young illegals who would be
granted amnesty would be put in direct competition with American
citizens for those scarce resources. Are we listening to the American
people about the struggles they are going through right now in this
desperate economy? If we do that, the answer would clearly be no.
Third, what about spending and debt? The American people have been
speaking to us loudly and clearly about that. Yet the DREAM Act would
increase spending and deficit and debt. Would we be listening to the
American people about that, were we to pass the DREAM Act? Absolutely
not. The DREAM Act has at least $5 billion of unpaid-for spending in
it, by all reasonable estimates. If we grant amnesty to 2.1 million
people and then down the road we double or triple that when counting
family members, of course, there is cost to that in terms of Federal
Government benefits and programs and spending. Reasonable estimates say
that is at least $5 billion of cost, unpaid for, increasing spending,
increasing deficit, increasing debt. If we did that by passing the
DREAM Act, would we be listening to the American people? Absolutely
not.
Let's come to the Senate Chamber and perform our first and most
solemn duty, which is to listen to the American people, listen to the
citizens of the States, and truly represent them in this important
body. Let's listen to them when they say no amnesty. Let's listen to
them when they say how difficult their lives are in this horrible
economy. Let's listen to them when they say control spending and
deficit and debt. Don't increase it yet again.
I propose we listen to them. I will listen to them and vote no on
cloture on the DREAM Act.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I said this morning when the Senate came
into session, the House passed, late last night, the DREAM Act. I have
asked consent from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
vitiate the cloture vote, and that was not granted this morning, which
I think is unfortunate because it is a waste of the Senate's time
because we need to act on a piece of legislation that is already
passed, so that when we pass it, it would go directly to the President.
We have been told by my Republican colleagues that they are not
willing to do any legislative business, which I think is untoward and
unnecessary and unfair. But that is where they are. So that being the
case, Mr. President, I would again renew my request that we vitiate the
vote on cloture that is pending before the Senate at this stage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, hearing the objection, I move to table the
motion to proceed to S. 3992, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 268 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Manchin
McCaskill
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--40
Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kirk
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Pryor
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Voinovich
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Brownback
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed having been tabled, the
cloture motion is vitiated.
____________________