[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 158 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6841-S6853]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2012--Continued
Amendment No. 781, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2
minutes, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to amendment No.
781, as modified, authored by the Senator from Louisiana.
The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will do my best to start the pace
around here. I am going to ask for a voice vote, and I would hope
people would give a shout out for a ``yea'' vote for a narrow exception
to a wetlands project for nonprofits with a permit to build. That is
what this amendment does. There is no opposition.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to modify her amendment?
Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 83, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:
Sec. 7__. For fiscal year 2012, section 363 of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 2006e)
shall not apply to a project funded under the community
facilities programs authorized under such Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 781), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 755
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes, equally divided,
on amendment No. 755.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. I accept a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there any further debate?
All time is yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 755) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 917 to Amendment No. 857
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on amendment No. 917, the
Vitter second-degree amendment.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I call up the Vitter second-degree
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 917 to amendment No. 857.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To reestablish the maximum aggregate amount permitted to be
provided by the taxpayers to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
On page 5, strike line 14 and insert the following:
2011'' and inserting ``December 31, 2013''.
SEC. __. REESTABLISHMENT OF MAXIMUM AGGREGATE AMOUNT
PERMITTED TO BE PROVIDED BY THE TAXPAYERS TO
FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC.
(a) Maximum Aggregate Amount of Commitment.--No funds may
be provided by the Department of the Treasury or any other
agency or entity of the Federal Government to the Federal
National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, as part of the Amended and Restated
Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated September
26, 2008, amended May 6, 2009, and further amended December
24, 2009 (as such agreement may be further amended), between
the Department of the Treasury and the Federal National
Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, as applicable, under any other agreement between
the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home
Loan Mortgage Corporation and the Department of the Treasury,
or otherwise, that exceed a maximum aggregate amount of
$200,000,000,000.
(b) Payments to Treasury.--Any dividend or interest payment
made by the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation to the Department of
the Treasury pursuant to any applicable contract, agreement,
or provision of law shall not be included in the calculation
of the aggregate amount of a commitment under subsection (a).
(c) Enforcement.--The Director of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency shall take such actions as the Administrator
determines are necessary to prevent the Federal National
Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation from requesting or receiving any funds that
exceed the limit provided in subsection (a).
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the terms
``deficiency amount'' and ``surplus amount'' have the
meanings provided such terms in the applicable Senior
Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement described in subsection
(a), as amended through December 24, 2009.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this is a second-degree amendment to the
Menendez amendment. The Menendez amendment would actually expand the
already dominant role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the mortgage
marketplace when there is an unlimited taxpayer bailout liability
toward that.
My amendment would simply say, particularly if there is going to be
this expansion, we should limit taxpayer liability to $200 billion, and
the taxpayer should definitely be paid the dividend they were promised.
I think that is a very reasonable taxpayer protection.
I reserve the remainder of my time for the ranking member of Banking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to speak for 45 seconds on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Vitter
amendment. The amendment will limit the taxpayers' exposure to the
bailout of Fannie and Freddie. No more blank checks. We have already
spent $169 billion in taxpayer dollars; $200 billion is more than
enough. Think about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. President, this amendment would
essentially force the wind-down of
[[Page S6842]]
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac prematurely without any structure to take
their place. The Banking Committee has heard from witnesses, including
Dwight Jaffee and Mark Zandi, that taking over Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac were the only options the government would have to avoid a complete
market collapse. This amendment could plunge us back into the panic of
2008, when credit was unavailable and the economy was on the verge of
collapse. Mortgages would not be finalized, home sales could not go
through, and the home owners would be unable to refinance.
The Vitter amendment would eliminate any stability we have achieved
in the housing market. The Vitter amendment is an irresponsible
response to the housing crisis, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the National Association of Realtors, and a letter from the Mortgage
Bankers Association.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Mortgage Bankers
Association,
Washington, DC, October 20, 2011.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, US Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, US Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: I am writing to express
the Mortgage Bankers Association's strong opposition to an
amendment being offered by Senator Vitter to the Menendez/
Isakson amendment #857 to the Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations Bill currently being
considered by the Senate. The Vitter amendment would
reestablish the cap on the amount of capital Treasury could
provide to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If adopted, this
amendment would severely undermine investor and market
certainty in our nation's housing markets.
Private capital has yet to return to the secondary market
at volumes that would sustain a sufficient level of
liquidity. Establishing an arbitrary cap on the amount
necessary to preserve the GSEs' presence in the market would
unnecessarily constrain some of the only sources of liquidity
during this volatile period in the nation's economy. MBA
urges a no vote on the Vitter second degree amendment to the
Menendez amendment.
Sincerely,
David H. Stevens,
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Mortgage Bankers Association.
____
National Association of Homebuilders and National
Association of Realtors,
October 20, 2011.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator: It has come to our attention that Senator
Vitter is asking for a second degree amendment to Menendez/
Isakson #857 that will cap the lending authority for Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac from the US Treasury. Please be aware
that the National Association of Homebuilders and the
National Association of REALTORS adamantly oppose the Vitter
Amendment.
Housing markets remain fragile. Despite record low interest
rates, existing home sales for September were down and
contract failures are more than double last year's rates. The
Vitter amendment would devastate any housing recovery. The
amendment would shut down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the
very time that they are providing valuable support to a
struggling housing market.
At their current rate, including the punitive ten percent
dividend they are required to pay, they may reach this cap in
short order, ending their ability to provide liquidity to
mortgage markets. Private entities simply do not have the
capacity to fill the void. Passage of this amendment would be
catastrophic to housing markets and would most likely cause a
relapse recession.
Please vote NO on the Vitter Amendment.
Sincerely,
National Association of Homebuilders,
National Association of REALTORS.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I yield back the time, and ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to Amendment No. 917.
Under the previous order, the Senate amendment requires 60 votes for
adoption.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BURR (when his name was called). ``Present.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 57, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 179 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--57
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Burr
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 57.
One Senator responded ``present.''
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Amendment No. 857
The question is on the underlying Menendez amendment. There is 2
minutes, evenly divided. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me when 30
seconds has passed by.
The Menendez-Isakson amendment would temporarily restore conforming
loan limits to the level that existed under the law as of September 30
but expired. The drop in loan limits has reduced consumer credit in 669
counties across 42 States. The amendment as we have drafted it will
save taxpayers $11 million over 10 years, including $2 million in
fiscal year 2012, according to the CBO, by creating a premium that
borrowers have to pay as a result of getting the loan, therefore
putting the risk on the borrower, not the taxpayer. If we want to get
our economy moving, the housing market has to be part of it.
I yield to my distinguished colleague from Georgia, Senator Isakson.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ninety seconds.
Mr. ISAKSON. It is going to be tough, but let me say there is a 15-
basis point fee on every loan that closes on this that goes into the
credit that is issued by Fannie, Freddie or FHA; it makes the taxpayer
whole, plus $11 million. It is right for the housing market. It takes
us back to where we were. It doesn't add any additional liability.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. I urge my
colleagues to vote against the Menendez amendment. If this amendment
becomes law, taxpayers will be forced to subsidize individuals who make
upward of $200,000 a year so they may buy homes worth nearly $1
million. That is what this is about. Increasing the loan limits will
only benefit those who do not need Federal subsidies.
This is simply not a good use of scarce taxpayer dollars. Even the
administration does not support higher loan limits here. It is a bad
amendment.
I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, 60 votes are
required for the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
[[Page S6843]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BURR (when his name was called). ``Present.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 180 Leg.]
YEAS--60
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Hagan
Harkin
Heller
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--38
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Grassley
Hatch
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Burr
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 60, the nays are
38, 1 Senator voting ``present.''
The amendment is agreed to.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a point of personal privilege or
a parliamentary inquiry. Due to the rate at which we are voting on
amendments that are pending, can the Parliamentarian or the leadership
share with us, after, say, 1 hour and 45 minutes on four votes, what it
might look like for the rest of the night?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know how frustrating it is for everyone.
This is not a question for the Parliamentarian. We are doing our best
to work through these votes. They are 10-minute votes. We are doing our
utmost to maintain that time and will continue to do that. We are sorry
that close votes, as everyone knows, sometimes take a little bit
longer. So I apologize to my friend from Louisiana and everyone else.
We will move through the votes as quickly as we can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. May I respectfully make one suggestion. Three options:
Stick to 10 minutes, we can voice vote, or we can withdraw, all of
which would rapidly speed up the process.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I wish I had thought of saying that.
Amendment No. 869
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Gillibrand amendment
No. 869.
The Senator from New York.
Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment because we have all seen how these storms have destroyed
crops, farmland. There have been enormous economic losses in State
after State.
Texas: 98 percent of the State is experiencing drought.
Mississippi: Farmers wade through acres of murky water; timber,
catfish farms inundated.
New York State: Crops destroyed, cows destroyed.
Tennessee: Unprecedented levels of rainfall.
This money is literally the difference between life and death for
these farmers.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I request a voice
vote.
Would Senator Blunt like to address the Chamber?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is
on agreeing to the Gillibrand amendment.
All those in favor, say aye.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
At this moment, there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, would the clerk please call the roll and
see if a quorum is present. I believe a quorum is present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll to ascertain the
presence of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Point of personal privilege. Could we call the roll
faster?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the
quorum be terminated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Gillibrand amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 41, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 181 Leg.]
YEAS--58
Akaka
Alexander
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--41
Ayotte
Barrasso
Boozman
Burr
Carper
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The amendment (No. 869) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, we would be much more efficient here if we
have 10-minute votes. It is very difficult for those who are doing the
work for us to determine who is voting which way, to hear us. People
are moving around. I think it will be to everyone's advantage if we all
sit down and make sure these are really 10-minute votes. It would make
it so much easier for the tally clerks and for everyone concerned. So I
would ask that we all be ladies and gentlemen, take our seats. This
will move much more efficiently.
Amendment No. 836
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Lautenberg amendment
No. 836. There is now 2 minutes of debate evenly divided.
The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this amendment increases funding for
disaster relief grants at the Economic Development Administration.
Forty-eight States have received a Federal disaster declaration this
year and may be eligible for this relief. EDA funds rebuild sewers and
drinking
[[Page S6844]]
water systems, coordinate response and recovery plans, and help
businesses to recover. This year alone, we have experienced a record 10
natural disasters costing more than $1 billion each. Hurricane Irene
caused more than $7 billion in damage alone.
In 2008, we gave EDA $500 million to respond to disasters in the
South and the Midwest. This amendment would give EDA the same amount
this year. The amendment complies with the disaster relief provision in
the Budget Control Act and is not offset with cuts from other programs.
Senators Sanders, Menendez, Gillibrand, Blumenthal, and Leahy are
cosponsors, and Chairman Mikulski supports it as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 1 minute.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
If all time is yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 836) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Amendment No. 771, as Modified
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the next amendment is amendment No.
771; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, this amendment will increase funding
for the U.S. Trade Representative's Office to the level the President
requested, also to the level the House appropriators have proposed. It
adds nearly $4.5 million to the budget for the U.S. Trade
Representative's Office. This is funding that is needed to enforce our
trade agreements. We just entered into three new free-trade agreements.
They need the personnel in order to try to enforce these. We have a
great many trade disputes with China--all of us are aware of that--and
other major industrial countries as well.
This amendment has the support of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
Farm Bureau, and the National Pork Producers Council.
This is good legislation which I hope all Senators will support.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
If all time is yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 771), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 810
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Sessions amendment
No. 810.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, the fastest growing large program we
have by far is the Food Stamp Program. It has gone from $20 billion to
$80 billion since 2001, grown four times. It has doubled since 2008.
This year proposes another $10 billion increase--14 percent. One of the
big reasons is that we have a growing utilization of categorical
eligibility where if one qualifies for LIHEAP, TANF, counseling
programs, and any number of other governmental relationships, one also
qualifies for food stamps. CBO scores this as costing as much as $10
billion over 10 years.
This is a good-government amendment. You can get food stamps. Nobody
would be eliminated. You simply have to go to the office and fill out
the form and show that you meet the food stamp qualifications and not
get by having met other qualifications that are less stringent. I
really believe it is a good amendment and would help us save some money
and make this program more effective.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first of all, I completely agree with
Senator Sessions. We need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in the
supplemental food program, as in every Federal program.
I wish to commend the USDA now for having less than a 4-percent error
rate, and we are going to continue to push them to go down even
further. Why? Because right now we have people who have paid taxes all
their lives, who had never in their wildest dreams thought they would
ever need help putting food on their table, and they do. We cannot
afford to waste even one dollar.
My colleague mentioned on the floor several times a lottery winner in
Michigan who got food assistance. He is right, it was outrageous. The
State changed it, and we are changing it in the upcoming farm bill. But
the reality is that this amendment, the Sessions amendment, completely
changes the structure of the food assistance program, putting up
barriers to hard-working, honest men, women, and children who need
help, most of them for the first time in their entire lives.
I urge my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I am disappointed that with so many
Americans struggling in difficult economic times, we are considering
amendments that will greatly reduce the ability of the neediest among
us to put food on the table for their families. The amendment numbered
810 filed by Senator Sessions would eliminate the ability of States to
align the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, eligibility
rules with the temporary assistance to needy families to reduce
administrative costs and simply enrollment.
Since 2008, Vermont has used categorical eligibility to reach more
households and more needy individuals by simplifying enrollment.
Reducing administrative costs and simplifying paperwork should be a
goal we all share for Federal programs. But by adopting this amendment,
about 1 million low-income Americans would lose their benefits and many
more families that are newly eligible during these difficult economic
times would have their benefits delayed because of the increased
complexity of the additional processing time for applications.
Low-income working families with children are the majority of those
who would be affected by the elimination of categorical eligibility.
Additionally, roughly 200,000 children in these families would lose
access to free school meals.
Improving the error rate even further in the SNAP program is an issue
that the Agriculture Committee is committed to addressing in the
upcoming farm bill negotiations, and one that we have already heard to
chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee speak about this week.
Eliminating State flexibility through categorical eligibility programs
does not address error rates in any meaningful way. Supporters of this
amendment cite limited examples as proof that categorical eligibility
is at the root of erroneous enrollments in SNAP. But allowing millions
to go hungry because of a few anecdotal stories is shortsighted at
best.
The Senate Agriculture Committee, which I am proud to be a senior
member of, will be looking for additional ways to improve SNAP in the
coming months, but eliminating categorical eligibility as this
amendment does is not the answer. I urge all Senators to oppose this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes
for the adoption of this amendment, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 41, nays 58, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 182 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kyl
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
[[Page S6845]]
NAYS--58
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 88.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is rejected.
Amendment No. 791
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The next amendment is the Coburn amendment No.
791.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we have 2,705 people in this country who
had adjusted gross incomes in excess of $2.5 million last year who got
farm payments--direct farm payments. This is an amendment that will
limit adjusted gross incomes above $1 million from receiving direct
payments.
We hear we are going to change that system. We may change that
system. But that has not happened yet. All this amendment says, if you
make more than $1 million, you should not be eligible to receive a
direct farm payment from this government. Rather than taxing the
millionaires, the first thing we ought to do is quit giving them
subsidies.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me just indicate that the House and
Senate Agriculture Committee leaders have come together in a
bipartisan, bicameral basis to recommend reforms in our farm commodity
programs that will, frankly, make this amendment a moot point. I would
ask my colleagues to vote no and to give us the next 10 days to come
forward with the new approach we will be offering.
I will now yield to my friend and colleague on the Agriculture
Committee, Senator Roberts.
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the chairwoman for yielding. The Senator from
Oklahoma has a good intent, but he is adding in a payment limit on top
of two others. It is going to be difficult to implement and
administrate from the Department of Agriculture's standpoint. The
Senator from Michigan is exactly right. He is limiting programs for
which there probably will not be any programs. I suggest we do this
during the reauthorization of the farm bill, and then I would encourage
the Senator to come at that particular time and figure out what is in
the farm bill and what is not, what payment limitation is appropriate
and what is not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 16 seconds remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, $1 million a year and we are giving them
money. We have a $1.3 trillion deficit, and we continue to hear the
defense of that. It would be great if we do a new farm program. But the
fact is, that is not a given. If we pass this amendment and we do a new
farm bill, this amendment has no effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponent's time has expired.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 183 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Akaka
Ayotte
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Coburn
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hutchison
Inouye
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lee
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Rockefeller
Rubio
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--15
Alexander
Baucus
Blunt
Boozman
Chambliss
Cochran
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Leahy
Moran
Pryor
Roberts
Stabenow
Wicker
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The amendment (No. 791) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 792
=========================== NOTE ===========================
On page S6845, October 20, 2011, the Record reads: NOT VOTING--1
Webb Amendment No. 792
The online Record has been corrected to read: NOT VOTING--1 Webb
The amendment (No. 791) was agreed to. Amendment No. 792
========================= END NOTE =========================
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally
divided, on the Coburn amendment No. 792.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, there are 4,000 properties in the United
States that get money from HUD for housing to help people whom we want
to help. There are 450 owners who are chronically on the list of
slumlords, who put the people who live in these houses in danger; they
are at high risk for losing their lives in that property.
This amendment only says that if you are going to continue to put
these people at risk of losing their lives, then we are not going to
pay you anymore. We are not going to send you money if you continue to
be in this group of slumlords who are not spending any of their money
bringing their properties up to date and you are leaving people at risk
of significant harm. I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Coburn for his passion on
this issue. He has raised valid concerns about the bad actors who are
part of the Federal program.
The problem is, the way this is drafted, it goes too far. This
amendment puts the tenants at risk. It will put the tenants out of a
place to live.
Earlier, I offered to work with the Senator to address the issue in a
way that would make sure we protect residents. We were not able to get
to a resolution. I hope we can continue to work on this. This
amendment, as drafted, will put the tenants at risk and out. If once in
5 years a HUD property falls under the troubled category, the tenants
will be at risk.
I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. I offer to work with
the Senator to address this in a way that gets after the problem he has
defined.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, they did offer, but they told us they
didn't have the time to work it out.
The fact is, these are life-threatening emergencies. If one person
dies because we don't do this, it is on our hands.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. There is a 60-vote threshold on this
vote.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 184 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
[[Page S6846]]
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kirk
Kohl
Kyl
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--40
Akaka
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are
40. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 796
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, is the next ordered amendment No. 796?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. COBURN. Might I be recognized?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. This is an amendment that addresses something that is
going on that I think we should not allow. We have a lot of great
programs that help a lot of cities and States out by creating loans
that allow the cities and States to do something. What is happening is,
when the project we gave the loan for fails, they turn around and take
Federal grants to repay the loan.
All this amendment does is to prohibit us from allowing grants to be
used to repay Federal loans on local or city or State projects.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I have concerns about the way this amendment
is worded. It may have serious consequences on disaster funding. I am
prepared to have a voice vote on this issue.
Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 796.
Under the previous order, the amendment requires 60 votes for
adoption.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 73, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 185 Leg.]
YEAS--73
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kyl
Landrieu
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--26
Akaka
Baucus
Cantwell
Conrad
Durbin
Franken
Gillibrand
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Whitehouse
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 73 and the nays are
26. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
Amendment No. 753
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent notwithstanding the
previous order the Senate now proceed to vote in relation to the Ayotte
amendment No. 753, and all other provisions of the previous order
remain in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Republican leader and I had a meeting
here a few minutes ago. Following this vote we will have more
information for the body.
Amendment No. 753
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, our country continues to be at war with
members of al-Qaida, enemy combatants who want to kill Americans and
that is why Congress authorized the use of military force to combat
these individuals. My amendment applies to the worst of the worst. It
would prohibit the use of funds for fiscal year 2012 for the
prosecution of enemy combatants in civilian article III courts. This
prohibition would extend to members of al-Qaida or affiliated entities,
and who have participated or carried out an attack against our country
or our coalition partners. It does not apply to American citizens.
These individuals, enemy combatants, are not common criminals who
just robbed a liquor store. When we detain a member of al-Qaida who is
planning an attack on our country, the priority has to be on gathering
information to protect Americans. I have great respect for our civilian
court system, but it was not set up to allow the time to interrogate
members of al-Qaida. We should not be trying these individuals in our
civilian system but in military commissions. We should not be providing
these terrorists Miranda rights and speedy presentment rights that come
with our civilian system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment. This is a very
different amendment from the one we adopted in our Armed Services
Committee relative to detention. This amendment was rejected on a
strong bipartisan vote in the Armed Services Committee. The reasons are
set forth in a letter from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Panetta, who
wrote us:
If we are to safeguard the American people, we must be in a
position to employ every lawful instrument of national
power--including both courts and military commissions--to
ensure that terrorists are brought to justice and can no
longer threaten American lives. By depriving us of one of our
most potent weapons in the fight against terrorism, the
Ayotte amendment would make it more likely that terrorists
would escape justice and innocent lives would be put at risk.
They have been successfully prosecuted. Recently in Detroit a
terrorist was successfully prosecuted in an article III court. We
should not deny the prosecutors this tool.
I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there have been over 300 successful
prosecutions of accused terrorists since 9/11; 200 under President
Bush, 100 under President Obama, all in article III courts; only 3
prosecutions in military commissions. Give the President the power he
needs to keep America safe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The time of the Senator has
expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Ms. AYOTTE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
This is a 60-vote threshold.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 186 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Brown (MA)
Burr
Chambliss
Coats
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
[[Page S6847]]
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (WI)
Kyl
Lee
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rubio
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NAYS--52
Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Manchin
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Paul
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
52. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of the
amendment, it is rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I indicated, the Republican leader and I
met prior to the last vote. We understand there has been tremendous
progress made. This is something for those of us who have been in the
Senate a while that brings back a lot of memories. This is the way we
did things in the past. It is difficult, but it moves legislation. It
has been inconvenient for everyone.
Before moving to this consent agreement, the most difficult time is
for our staffs. They have worked the last two days as hard as people
can work, led by Gary Myrick on my side, David Schiappa on the other
side. Other staff has worked very hard, but they have been exemplary
people to help us move it.
Here is the consent agreement. I hope everyone will agree with this.
I ask consent that the next vote on our sequence be the cloture vote
with respect to the substitute amendment No. 738; that if cloture is
invoked, the substitute amendment be agreed to and it be considered
original text for the purposes of further amendment; that the remaining
amendments which were scheduled for votes under the previous order
remain in order notwithstanding cloture having been invoked; that when
the Senate resumes consideration of H.R. 2112 on Tuesday, November 1,
the Senate proceed to votes on the remaining amendments; and that all
other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. An inquiry. I will not object. Does that mean 60 votes are
required under the current order and continue to be required?
Mr. REID. All elements of the previous order are in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on amendment No.
738 to H.R. 2112, an Act making appropriations for
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Herb Kohl, Daniel Inouye, Sheldon Whitehouse,
Jack Reed, Robert Menendez, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara
Mikulski, Patty Murray, Debbie Stabenow, Richard
Durbin, Sherrod Brown, Richard Blumenthal, Bernard
Sanders, Robert Casey, Jr., Jeff Merkley, Patrick
Leahy, Tom Harkin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call
has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate on
amendment No. 738 offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, to H.R.
2112, an act making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the role.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb), is
necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 82, nays 16, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 187 Leg.]
YEAS--82
Akaka
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Baucus
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coons
Durbin
Enzi
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Harkin
Hoeven
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson (SD)
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
Manchin
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Portman
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--16
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Hatch
Heller
Johnson (WI)
Lee
McCain
Risch
Rubio
Sessions
Toomey
Vitter
NOT VOTING--2
Paul
Webb
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 82, the nays are
16. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Under the previous order, the substitute amendment (No. 738) is
agreed to.
The Republican leader.
Tribute to Carl H. Lindner, Jr.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I rise to mourn the passing of a
great American and a man who did much to benefit the people of Kentucky
as well as Ohio. Carl Henry Lindner, Jr., was Greater Cincinnati's most
successful entrepreneur and a self-made man. He passed away this
October 17. He was 92 years old.
Carl Lindner was born in Dayton, OH, in 1919, the son of a dairyman.
He quit high school to help out in his father's dairy. That store grew
into United Dairy Farmers, a chain of dairy and convenience stores that
many northern Kentuckians frequent to this day to buy their famous ice
cream.
Mr. Lindner made much of his living in the banking and insurance
business. His name became famous across northern Kentucky and Ohio and
nationwide as the owner of the Cincinnati Reds from 1999 to 2005. Carl
also ran an amusement park and his hometown newspaper, the Cincinnati
Enquirer.
Always the optimist, Carl was famous for carrying cards with him that
he would hand out to anyone he met with motivational sayings printed on
them. One frequent version of the card would read: ``Only in America!
Gee, am I lucky!''
Carl spent much of his time working for his community, bringing
thousands of high-paying jobs to Cincinnati and northern Kentucky. He
has been called a ``one-man Chamber of Commerce.'' He also was renowned
for his philanthropic efforts. He gave generously of his time and
resources to charities, churches, universities, museums, organizations
serving the underprivileged, and even children in Sri Lanka orphaned by
the 2005 tsunami.
I had the benefit of knowing Carl for a long time very well. He was
an amazing man, and his loss will be deeply felt by many. Elaine and I
send our condolences to his wife Edyth; his sons, Carl III, Craig, and
Keith; his 12 grandchildren, 5 great grandchildren, and many other
beloved family members and friends.
[[Page S6848]]
The passing of Carl Lindner is a true loss for the people of northern
Kentucky, Ohio, and the Nation. I know my Senate colleagues join me in
remembering and honoring Carl for his very American success story, his
service to his community, and the example he leaves behind for others
of a full life well lived.
Madam President, the Cincinnati Enquirer recently published an
obituary of Carl Lindner. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in
full in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Cincinnati Enquirer, Oct. 18, 2011]
Carl Henry Lindner: 1919-2011
Billionaire Investor, Dead at 92, Was Cincinnati's Biggest Benefactor
(By Cliff Peale)
From humble beginnings running his father's dairy store in
Norwood, Carl Henry Lindner Jr. grew into a billionaire, a
friend of U.S. presidents and Greater Cincinnati's most
successful entrepreneur.
For nearly a century until he died late Monday at age 92,
the former Reds owner never shed the fierce competitiveness
and loyalty that made him a hometown icon.
His influence ran to every corner of Greater Cincinnati.
The high-school dropout bought and sold Kings Island, the
Reds, Provident Bank and the Enquirer. His name is on
buildings from the University of Cincinnati's business school
to the tennis center at Lunken Playfield.
But it was the banking and insurance business that made him
a billionaire. At his death, his American Financial Group
Inc. controlled assets of nearly $32 billion and he was
routinely listed as one of the richest men in America.
Ever the optimist, Lindner often carried an inch-thick
stack of cards with motivational sayings--one was ``Only in
America! Gee, am I lucky!''--that he handed out to anyone he
would meet.
He was a teetotaler, physically unimposing yet with a
prominent shock of white hair and a penchant for wearing
flashy neckties.
Even to his closest friends and colleagues, he was soft-
spoken and rarely confrontational. Yet some business partners
complained about unfair treatment and he flashed a harsh
temper when confronting reporters who wrote what he perceived
as unfriendly stories or criticism of his business dealings.
A devout Baptist and a longtime member of Kenwood Baptist
Church, Lindner used his wealth and influence behind the
scenes to become Greater Cincinnati's largest benefactor and
economic development force. At the height of his personal
giving he contributed millions of dollars a year to
charitable causes, and brought thousands of high-paying jobs
to downtown Cincinnati.
His companies brought thousands of employees to the region,
and the annual Christmas party that he threw at Music Hall
attracted some of the nation's biggest acts, including Bill
Cosby and Frank Sinatra.
Considered himself outsider
At the same time, Lindner thought of himself as an
outsider, building his business career outside of
Cincinnati's old-money elite. He was never a member of many
of the most exclusive business and country clubs and his bar-
the-doors business style, starting with a hostile takeover of
Provident Bank in the mid-1960s, was out of place in always
polite Cincinnati.
Perhaps the most public role of his career was his
ownership of the Cincinnati Reds from 1999 to 2005. Lindner
owned a minority stake both before and after that period but
was the Reds' CEO for six seasons, and each of those years
the team lost more games than it won.
He approved the trade for Ken Griffey Jr. in 2000, even
sending his private jet to bring Griffey to Cincinnati and
then personally driving the hometown star back to Cinergy
Field from Lunken Airport in his Rolls-Royce.
But as the Reds' losses mounted, Lindner never spoke
publicly to fans and privately bristled at talk-radio
criticism.
That period ended in late 2005 when Lindner sold a
controlling stake in the Reds to a group headed by Bob
Castellini.
Shy and scornful of reporters, Lindner nevertheless became
a focus of media attention because of his substantial wealth
and his far-flung business dealings.
The controversies included millions of dollars in political
contributions as his Chiquita Brands International Inc. was
waging a trade war with European countries, a bevy of
lawsuits and federal charges over business deals that
benefited Lindner and his company more than other
shareholders, and a high-profile battle with the Enquirer in
1998 over a series of critical stories on Chiquita.
Lindner built a national reputation in the 1980s as a high-
risk trader, becoming a business partner of symbols of the
decade's excess such as junk-bond king Michael Milken and
Cincinnati's own Charles Keating.
He was the classic ``value investor,'' buying properties
few other investors wanted and waiting years, or even
decades, to reap the benefits.
That gave him a portfolio including the old Penn Central
railroad, Circle K convenience stores and New York City
landmark Grand Central Station.
But Lindner spent the two decades before his death shedding
assets that didn't deal with insurance and transferring
others to his three sons. That left American Financial as
mostly an insurance and financial services company.
He lost his stake in Chiquita in 2002 when that company
emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In 2004, Lindner, his
family and American Financial reaped nearly $1 billion in
stock when they sold Cincinnati's Provident Financial Group
Inc. to Cleveland-based National City Corp.
The moves consolidated the business around safer insurance
businesses. Lindner also transferred tens of millions of
dollars to his three sons and their families, solidifying for
generations a wealth that he never enjoyed growing up.
Starting from scratch
Born April 22, 1919, in Dayton, Ohio, Carl Henry Lindner
Jr. was the firstborn of a modest dairyman and his wife,
Clara.
Lindner quit high school to help in his father's Norwood
dairy store. Along with his father, he and his brothers
Robert and Richard, and sister Dorothy, built it into United
Dairy Farmers, a chain of dairy and convenience stores.
When the family founded what now is UDF on Montgomery Road
in Norwood in 1940, the first day's sales amounted to $8.28.
Lindner often talked about the modest surroundings of his
childhood, noting more than once that he picked up dates in
an ice-cream truck.
Robert Lindner's family eventually took control of UDF, and
Richard Lindner became sole owner of the Thriftway
supermarket chain before selling it to Winn-Dixie Stores.
Lindner married the former Ruth Wiggeringloh of Norwood in
1942. They divorced seven years later with no children. He
then married the former Edyth Bailey in 1951, and they have
three sons who all went into the family business: Carl III,
Craig and Keith.
Lindner cautiously entered the savings-and-loan and
insurance business, founding his flagship company American
Financial Corp. in 1959. In the early 1970s the company
gained control of Great American Insurance, which would
become its chief operating business.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the company bought and sold
companies in a variety of industries. Lindner took the
company private in 1981 and released little financial
information to the public, but in 1995 the company sold stock
to public shareholders under the new umbrella of American
Financial Group Inc.
In 2003, Keith Lindner left American Financial to
concentrate on the family's charitable pursuits. In 2004 Carl
and Craig Lindner were named co-CEOs of the company while
Carl Lindner Jr. remained chairman.
Lindner was a conservative icon, lobbying against Robert
Mapplethorpe's 1990 exhibit at the Contemporary Arts Center
here and funding the Cincinnati Hills Christian Academy.
But he was pragmatic as well, contributing more than $1
million to Democratic President Bill Clinton during Chiquita
Brands' battle over European banana quotas. He was well known
as one of the biggest givers in the country to both political
parties.
The good life
Lindner developed a taste for the good life, including a
sprawling home in Indian Hill and nearly a dozen Rolls-Royce
automobiles--with the trademark ``CHL'' license plate--that
he drove himself well into his 80s.
He also owned a home in the exclusive Ocean Reef community
of North Key Largo, Fla. There, he entertained lavishly,
including hosting former President George Bush in the early
1990s.
Lindner traveled around the country in his own private jet.
He dined often at exclusive restaurants like the Maisonette
or the Waterfront--where he was an investor--and also became
a regular at Trio in Kenwood.
Lindner received nearly every award Cincinnati has to
offer, including induction into Junior Achievement's Greater
Cincinnati Business Hall of Fame in 1992 and the Great Living
Cincinnatian award in 1994.
He was also on the board of directors of Citizens for
Decency through Law, an anti-pornography group headed by
American Financial co-founder and one-time Executive Vice
President Charles Keating.
Among numerous awards and honors throughout his career,
Lindner was named Man of the Year of the United Jewish Appeal
in 1978 and received the Friars Club Centennial Award in
1985. He was awarded an honorary doctorate by UC in 1985 and
by Xavier University in 1991.
Services not scheduled yet
Lindner's family has not yet scheduled memorial or funeral
services.
American Financial Group, where Lindner was chairman, said
Tuesday that the family had requested memorial gifts be made
to Kenwood Baptist Church.
Lindner is survived by wife Edyth, sons Carl III, Craig and
Keith, 12 grandchildren and five great-grandchildren.
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Amendments Nos. 859, 892, 893, as Modified; 805, as Modified; 890, 918,
and 912, as Modified, En Bloc
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be
[[Page S6849]]
called up, reported by number, and considered en bloc: Senator Portman,
No. 859; Senator McCain, No. 892; Senator Cantwell, No. 893, as
modified, with the changes that are at the desk; Senator Cochran, No.
805, as modified, with the changes at the desk; Senator Burr, No. 890;
Senator Inouye, No. 918; and Senator Kyl, No. 912, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Portman,
proposes an amendment numbered 859.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. McCain,
proposes an amendment numbered 892.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Ms. Cantwell,
proposes an amendment numbered 893, as modified.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Cochran,
proposes an amendment numbered 805, as modified.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Burr,
proposes an amendment numbered 890.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Inouye,
proposes an amendment numbered 918.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mr. Kyl,
proposes an amendment numbered 912, as modified.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 859
(Purpose: To strike a section relating to the approval of projects that
include beam rail elements and terminal sections)
Strike section 125 of title I of division C.
AMENDMENT NO. 892
(Purpose: To provide additional flexibility for the closing or
relocation of Rural Development offices)
On page 70, line 7, insert ``or that the closing or
relocation would result in cost savings'' after ``delivery''.
AMENDMENT NO. 893, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To direct the National Aquatic Animal Health Task Force to
assess the risk Infectious Salmon Anemia poses to wild Pacific salmon
and the coastal economies which rely on them)
On page 108, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
Sec. 114. (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the National
Aquatic Animal Health Task Force shall submit to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the
Senate and the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives a report of the findings of the research
objectives described in subsection (b).
(b) Research and Surveillance.--The National Aquatic Animal
Health Task Force shall establish Infectious Salmon Anemia
research objectives, in collaboration the with the Government
of Canada, and Federal, State, and tribal governments,
including the Department of Fish and Wildlife of Washington
and the Department of Fish and Game of Alaska, to assess--
(1) the prevalence of Infectious Salmon Anemia in both wild
and aquaculture salmonid populations throughout Alaska,
Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho;
(2) genetic susceptibility by population and species;
(3) susceptibility of populations to Infectious Salmon
Anemia from geographic and oceanographic factors;
(4) potential transmission pathways between infectious
Canadian sockeye and uninfected salmonid populations in
United States waters;
(5) management strategies to rapidly respond to potential
Infectious Salmon Anemia outbreaks in both wild and
aquaculture populations, including securing the water
supplies at conservation hatcheries to protect hatchery fish
from exposure to the Infectious Salmon Anemia virus present
in incoming surface water;
(6) potential economic impacts of Infectious Salmon Anemia;
(7) any role foreign salmon farms may have in spreading
Infectious Salmon Anemia to wild populations;
(8) the identity of any potential Federal, State, tribal,
and international research partners;
(9) available baseline data, including baseline data
available from a collaborating entity; and
(10) other Infectious Salmon Anemia research priorities, as
determined by the Task Force.
AMENDMENT NO. 805, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To set aside certain funding for the construction,
acquisition, or improvement of fossil-fueled electric generating plants
that utilize carbon sequestration systems)
On page 49, line 15, before the period at the end insert
``: Provided, That up to $2,000,000,000 may be used for the
construction, acquisition, or improvement of fossil-fueled
electric generating plants (whether new or existing) that
utilize carbon sequestration systems''.
AMENDMENT NO. 890
(Purpose: To improve the transparency and accountability of the FDA in
order to encourage regulatory certainty and innovation on behalf of
America's patients)
On page 62, line 17, strike the period and insert the
following: ``: Provided further, That not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall submit to Congress a report
that discloses, with respect to all drugs, devices, and
biological products approved, cleared, or licensed under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or the Public Health
Service Act during calendar year 2011, including such drugs,
devices, and biological products so approved, cleared, or
licensed using funds made available under this Act: (1) the
average number of calendar days that elapsed from the date
that drug applications (including any supplements) were
submitted to such Secretary under section 505 of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355) until the date
that the drugs were approved under such section 505; (2) the
average number of calendar days that elapsed from the date
that applications for device clearance (including any
supplements) under section 510(k) of such Act (21 U.S.C.
360(k)) or for premarket approval (including any supplements)
under section 515 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 360e) were submitted
to such Secretary until the date that the devices were
cleared under such section 510(k) or approved under such
section 515; and (3) the average number of calendar days that
elapsed from the date that biological license applications
(including any supplements) were submitted to such Secretary
under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
262) until the date that the biological products were
licensed under such section 351.''.
AMENDMENT NO. 918
(Purpose: To strike provisions related to the Commission on Wartime
Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent)
Beginning on page 197, strike line 9 and all that follows
through page 209, line 2, and insert the following:
Sec. 541. The amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by title IV under the heading ``Commission on
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of
Japanese Descent'' is hereby reduced by $1,700,000.
AMENDMENT NO. 912, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To increase funding for the southwest border enforcement)
On page 117, line 16, strike ``$1,101,041,000'' and insert
``$1,111,041,000; of which not to exceed $10,000,000 shall be
available for necessary expenses for increased deputy
marshals and staff related to Southwest border enforcement
until September 30, 2012;''.
On page 117, line 23, strike ``$12,000,000'' and insert
``$20,250,000, of which $8,250,000 shall be available for
detention upgrades at Federal courthouses located in the
Southwest border region''.
On page 191, line 20, after the semicolon, insert ``and an
additional $25,000,000 shall be permanently rescinded;''.
Mr. DURBIN. I believe the Senate is ready to act on these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendments, en bloc.
The amendments were agreed to en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 893, as Modified
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, in that en bloc group of amendments
was an important amendment, amendment No. 893, as modified, that was
sponsored by my colleagues from the Northwest--obviously myself,
Senator Murray, Senator Wyden, Senator Merkley, Senator Boxer, and
Senator Feinstein. We thought it was very important that this amendment
pass tonight because scientists are calling it a disease emergency;
that is, that the Pacific Northwest wild salmon might be threatened by
a virus that has already decimated fish farm salmon from around the
world.
So we want to see, first of all, important scientific questions
answered about the impacts of this virus, and the threat they pose to
Pacific Northwest salmon. Second, we want to make sure there is an
aggressive management plan and an effective rapid response plan to deal
with the threat of this virus. And, third, we want to make sure we are
protecting the wild salmon and the important economy that goes with it.
I know many people know the Northwest is known for a healthy salmon
population, but this salmon population is also an economy for us. It is
tens of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars as it
relates to our economy. So being able to detect this virus and make
sure we are assessing the potential threat to the wild salmon
population is something we want to see happen immediately.
[[Page S6850]]
This makes sure the task force, which is a joint task force already
in place between NOAA and the USDA, works effectively in a very short
time period to make sure we are getting this accurate assessment.
As I mentioned, this virus in the farm fish population around the
world--in Chile and other places--has decimated salmon. We cannot risk
having this impact the Pacific Northwest wild salmon. So we need
answers quickly from the scientific community. We need an action plan
immediately. And we need to make sure we are formulating a rapid
response as to what to do if we do detect this virus is spreading, with
the potential impact we have seen in other areas.
I thank my colleagues for making sure this amendment was adopted
tonight. I know Senator Murkowski had planned earlier to talk about
this. I want to thank Senator Hutchison from Texas for helping us move
this along in the process.
I hope now, as we move this legislation, we will also get the
cooperation from NOAA and Secretary Lubchenco and others, and those at
NMFS, to make sure we are responding very rapidly to this very serious,
what people have called the scientific need to get these questions
answered as soon as possible.
I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 898, 809, and 806
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments, which have been cleared by the managers of both sides be
agreed to: Rubio, 898; Thune, 809; and Hutchison, 806.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 898, 809, and 806) were agreed to, as follows:
amendment no. 898
(Purpose: To require an evaluation of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility)
On page 153, after line 24, add the following:
SEC. 218. EVALUATION OF GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY.
The Attorney General shall identify an independent auditor
to evaluate the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.
amendment no. 809
(Purpose: To authorize States to be reimbursed for expenditures made in
reliance of a grant erroneously awarded pursuant to sections 4101(c)(4)
and 4126 of Public Law 109-59)
On page 251, strike line 8 and insert ``agreement, shall
not be required to repay grant amounts received in error
under such sections and, in addition, shall be reimbursed for
core or expanded deployment expenditures such States made
before the date of the enactment of this Act in reliance on a
grant awarded in error under such sections.''.
amendment no. 806
(Purpose: To amend the requirements for the designation of Moving-To-
Work agencies)
On page 365, line 8, strike ``10,000'' and insert
``20,000''.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I wish to say a few words about the
bill that we are currently considering and, in particular, a very
worthwhile program funded by this bill that I believe is critical to
moving our Nation forward.
One very important agency funded by the fiscal year 2012 Commerce-
Justice-Science bill that has not been getting much attention in the
debate this week is NASA. Senators Nelson, Hutchison, Rockefeller, and
others worked incredibly hard to get a balanced reauthorization bill
passed last year, and I commend them for their hard work in getting it
signed into law. One aspect of that bill that I worked particularly
hard on was ensuring that we are doing what we can to advance NASA's
mission while also promoting the development of the commercial space
sector. In negotiations on that authorization bill, Senator Nelson and
I arrived at what I believe is a fair compromise that will allow us to
pursue advances in the commercial cargo and commercial crew fields and
harness the innovation and cost savings that the private sector can
provide. In a recently released study, in fact, NASA estimated that the
Falcon 9 launch vehicle being developed by the private sector company
SpaceX will cost less than half what it would cost for NASA to develop
the launch vehicle itself. In the current fiscal climate, it is
imperative that we partner with commercial companies to pursue the
cost-effective innovation that can only be achieved through the
competition that exists in the private sector. Supporting development
of the commercial space industry will also help create steady, well-
paying jobs and spur economic growth--not only in urban tech corridors,
but also in more rural areas where launch facilities are located such
as the Wallops Island facility in my home State of Virginia.
By appropriating funding at the authorized level of $500 million for
the commercial crew development, CCDEV, program, I believe the fiscal
year 2012 Commerce-Justice-Science bill honors the commitment we made
in the authorization bill to move forward in that field. I commend
Senator Mikulski for her leadership in that regard, and I am excited by
the opportunities to come. While NASA develops our next heavy lift
vehicle and a host of other important research duties, the private
sector has the capability to quickly and cost-effectively deliver
vehicles for our astronauts to access the International Space Station,
ISS, and minimize our dependence on Russia for those trips. Given what
we will be paying Russia for those trips to the ISS, there is the
potential that we can actually save money in the long run by investing
in commercial space to develop a competitive vehicle, rather than
continuing to pay the Russians for seats on their vehicles.
Moving forward with the CCDEV program will also result in additional
opportunities for development at the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, the
Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, and the Mid-Atlantic
Regional Spaceport. I have supported the Wallops facilities in Virginia
since my time as Governor, and from my recent visits, I can attest that
they are making tremendous progress in developing their launch
infrastructure. Providing funding for the CCDEV program at authorized
levels, as we have done in this bill, will help us drive competition in
the commercial space industry and will provide opportunities for
facilities such as Wallops to further develop their launch
infrastructure and provide steady, high-wage employment in areas that
sorely need it.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I wish to speak about amendment No.
855, which I filed with Senators Coburn, Gillibrand, Lautenberg, and
Brown.
This amendment would require the Secretary of Agriculture to enforce
adjusted gross income limits on farm subsidies that were established in
the last farm bill by:
Pursuing thousands of individuals flagged by the IRS as potentially
illegal recipients of farm subsidies; reclaiming subsidies from
millionaires and other illegal recipients; and auditing subsidy
recipients who claim they are in compliance with income limits but
whose IRS tax returns suggest otherwise.
I do not intend to ask for a vote on this amendment at this time, but
I would like to explain to my colleagues why I am calling upon the USDA
to more vigorously enforce the adjusted gross income limits in law.
In the 2008 farm bill, Congress capped the income of farm bill
subsidy payment recipients at $500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000
for farm income.
The limits were imposed because there had been increasing concerns
that direct payments, countercyclical payments, and marketing loan
benefits had been going to corporate agriculture and millionaires.
These subsidy programs are designed to provide a safety net to
farmers whose industry suffers from dramatic swings in prices from year
to year.
Congress intended to prevent individuals who could provide their own
safety net from drawing funds they didn't need from taxpayers.
The final enacted limits--$500,000 for non-farm income and $750,000
for farm income--prevent payments only to farmers and absentee farm-
owners who are doing extremely well financially.
Less than 2 percent of Americans make this much money in a given
year.
And Congress applied the caps flexibly.
[[Page S6851]]
Income can be averaged over a 3-year period, standard income tax
deductions apply, and farmers can deduct their expenses related to
their entire farm operation.
Congress gave the U.S. Department of Agriculture clear direction to
investigate and enforce the income caps.
But the USDA has been very slow to enforce this provision.
First, USDA did not thoroughly review subsidy recipients to prevent
illegal payments from going out the door in 2009, 2010, or 2011, even
though the farm bill instructed that ``the Secretary shall deny the
issuance of applicable payments and benefits'' to farmers who fail to
certify compliance.
Second, the USDA has not yet aggressively pursued thousands of
payment recipients that the IRS has identified as likely violators.
Third, the USDA has not conducted a single audit of a subsidy
recipient, even though the farm bill states:
The Secretary shall establish statistically valid
procedures under which the Secretary shall conduct targeted
audits of such persons or legal entities as the Secretary
determines are most likely to exceed the limitations . . .
Finally, USDA has made no attempt to identify those who lied about or
concealed their income in order to receive subsidy payments. Such an
act would constitute fraud against the U.S. government.
USDA has taken the initial step by working with the IRS to identify
potentially illegal payments in 2009 and 2010, and I commend them for
this action.
The preliminary results of their investigation are staggering:
The IRS ``flagged'' 13,000 individuals in USDA's database with tax
returns that suggest they exceed congressionally mandated income caps.
When USDA reached out to 200 randomly selected ``flagged''
individuals, more than 15 percent returned the money--with no questions
asked.
Another 30 percent of those contacted by USDA didn't bother to
respond, suggesting a lack of respect among payment recipients for
USDA's enforcement ability.
This preliminary effort demonstrates that enforcing this law is both
fair and fiscally responsible.
Thousands of recipients could be receiving tens, even hundreds, of
millions of Federal dollars each year, illegally.
Wealthy farmers--and absent farm owners--are still claiming payments
from the farm bill's safety net programs, and the USDA is not doing
enough to stop them.
Some of my colleagues believe we should wait for the next farm bill
to address this problem. But I doubt they recognize that failing to
enforce this provision wastes this much money.
Furthermore, the next farm bill is likely to include some form of
payment regime, as every farm bill has for more than 50 years.
It might not be direct payments, but some form of subsidy payment
regime is expected to remain.
Vigorous income limit enforcement makes the farm safety net stronger,
not weaker. It assures that funding is available for those who need it,
even in a time of severe cuts.
Our constituents are suffering through the longest economic downturn
in a generation. And government resources to help those truly in need
are dwindling.
And yet despite congressional direction to conduct audits and
oversight of fraudulent payments to individuals already making hundreds
of thousands of dollars per year, the Department of Agriculture has not
done enough to ensure that our limited resources are being spent
wisely.
I urge our colleagues to join me in speaking out about this issue. I
urge them to demand that the USDA enforce the law.
We need to send a clear message that fraudulent claims and subsidies
to the rich are unacceptable.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, though I support the goal of sensible
reform to the Federal criminal justice system, I opposed the Webb
amendment, No. 750, for several reasons.
First, I am concerned that the National Criminal Justice Commission
created by this amendment would not be required to adopt unanimous
recommendations. As a result, it is likely that this commission would
fracture into partisan camps instead of working toward the types of
bipartisan consensus recommendations that would truly help solve the
problems facing our justice system. The experience of the 9/11
Commission is instructive. Despite the widely divergent policy views of
the ten 9/11 Commission members, they came together to produce a 567-
page report containing 37 recommendations--without a single voice of
dissent. As a result, Congress passed nearly all of that commission's
recommendations within 2 years. I am not confident that a nonunanimous
National Criminal Justice Commission will have the same success.
Additionally, I believe the broad jurisdiction of the National
Criminal Justice Commission could lead it to examine highly
controversial policy areas better left to the elected branches of
government. This would create an opportunity for certain interest
groups to pressure the commission to make divisive recommendations on
issues such as narcotics legalization and the repeal of mandatory
minimum sentences. While these interest groups may believe that their
arguments have merit, they should make these arguments to their elected
representatives, rather than unelected commission members. The Congress
and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees are the proper venue in
which to examine controversial criminal justice policy issues.
Furthermore, I have strong federalism concerns with the commission's
jurisdiction to make recommendations concerning State and local
criminal justice systems. Though Congress has the legitimate authority
to appropriate funds to examine the federal criminal justice system, it
does not have the authority to order the same examination at the State
and local level. In my home State of Texas, the State government
undertook sweeping reforms to its criminal justice system that will
save taxpayers billions of dollars. While I am proud of this
achievement, I do not believe that the Federal Government should push
other States to do the same thing. If another State looks at the
success of the Texas reforms, but decides not to enact them, then that
is the choice reserved to them by the United States Constitution.
Federal taxpayer dollars should not be used to interfere with this
decision.
Given the major concerns I have noted, it is almost certain that the
money appropriated by this amendment would amount to little actual
change in the criminal justice system. In fact, the proposed National
Criminal Justice Commission, in its current form, would likely only
lead to more partisan bickering. Given the financial state of the
Nation, I believe that it would be unwise to spend $5 million on a
commission whose recommendations will likely be so divisive and
controversial that they will never even be acted upon by Congress.
I believe that we should have a serious discussion about the federal
criminal justice system and reducing out-of-control incarceration
rates. Unfortunately, this amendment would not advance that goal. For
this reason, I voted against the Webb amendment No. 750.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, earlier this afternoon we voted on a
good government proposal that would have improved accountability for
taxpayer dollars. That amendment focused on grants awarded by the
Department of Justice. Soon we will be voting to repeal another good
government measure; that is, the provision to ensure that government
contractors pay their taxes by requiring that governments withhold 3
percent from payments to contractors as prepayment for their taxes. The
provision was enacted in direct response to a series of Government
Accountability Office, or GAO, reports about Federal contractors not
paying their taxes.
I have always said that taxpayers should pay what they owe--not a
penny more, and not a penny less. And several GAO reports indicate that
information reporting and upfront withholding significantly improve
compliance. In fact, that is why the Federal Government withholds taxes
from individual paychecks.
Since the provision was enacted, I have heard repeatedly about the
costs of implementation. I am disappointed by the misinformation that
has been spread by the various outside groups--just like the ones that
lobbied against my Justice Department grant amendment today.
[[Page S6852]]
Specifically, one fictitious estimate by an outside group states that
the cost to implement this provision is $75 billion. There is another
made-up estimate that it would cost the Department of Defense $17
billion to implement this provision.
I have a very long history, over 30 years in the Senate, of doing
oversight of various Federal agencies. I cut my teeth in oversight by
combating waste, fraud, and abuse at the Defense Department. I knew
both the 75 billion and 17 billion numbers were bogus the first time I
heard them.
The Congressional Budget Office, or the CBO, the nonpartisan,
objective scorekeeper for Congress, has estimated the cost of
implementation to the Federal Government, including the Defense
Department, to be $85 million over 5 years.
Mr. President, I am a firm believer in reviewing laws that aren't
working. This provision never even had a chance to work. However, I
have heard from small business owners across Iowa about the burdens the
withholding provision would impose on them, particularly with the
economy still being in the dumps.
For that reason, I support repealing this provision. My preference
would have been to fix the provision so that small businesses and State
and local governments would be exempted. However, that would have
likely created even more complexity.
Let me just say that, despite the rhetoric, large corporations would
not have been impacted in the same way that small businesses would have
been.
They, especially defense and Medicare contractors, are not operating
on a cash flow basis or on profit margins of 3 percent. They are just
riding the coattails of small businesses in pushing for repeal of this
provision.
As we proceed to vote on repeal of this provision, let me remind my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that tax cheats are a very real
problem. Tax delinquent contractors continue to be awarded Federal
contracts, despite the administration's efforts to clamp down on
awarding contracts to them. The most recent example is the award of
stimulus contracts.
A GAO report from May of just this year indicated that $24 billion in
Federal contracts were awarded to contractors who owed more than $750
million of back taxes. This is not chump change.
In the past year or so, Members of the House and Senate have
supported measures to ensure that Federal employees pay their taxes.
Well, Federal contractors should not be treated any differently. The
country is in the midst of an unprecedented fiscal crisis. Tax
increases are off the table so we need to ensure that we are collecting
every dollar that is owed to the Federal Government.
Senator Baucus and I continue to work on an alternative to 3 percent
withholding. This alternative would prohibit the Federal Government
from awarding contracts to tax cheats.
In order to assist contracting agencies in identifying tax cheats, we
would enable those agencies to check a contractor's tax status with the
Internal Revenue Service. This new approach would be much narrower in
focus than the 3 percent withholding provision. It should only impact
the bad actors. When we have an opportunity to consider this provision,
I would hope that my colleagues would support us in enacting it.
Preventing tax cheating should be a bipartisan issue.
I ask unanimous consent that the CBO estimate be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE--CHANGE IN AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION ARISING FROM SECTION 511 OF THE TAX INCREASE PREVENTION AND RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2005
[In millions of dollars by fiscal year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Implementation Costs:
Nonrecurring.................................. 35 0 0 0 0 35
Recurring..................................... 10 10 10 10 10 50
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................... 45 10 10 10 10 85
Costs to Federal Contractors:
Nonrecurring a................................ 7,500 400 400 400 400 9,100
Recurring b...................................
Financing................................. 550 550 550 550 550 2,750
Reporting................................. 100 100 100 100 100 500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 8,150 1,050 1,050 1,050 1,050 12,350
Total Costs....................................... 8,195 1,060 1,060 1,060 1,060 12,435
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Department of Defense, Federal Procurement Data System.
a. Implementation costs of federal contractors are not directly billable to federal agencies. CBO expects that such costs will eventually be passed on
to federal agencies in the form of higher prices for goods and services, although not necessarily in the same year that those costs are incurred.
b. Ongoing implementation costs arise from regular turnover of federal contractors. New vendors will need to modify their accounting systems to provide
goods and services to federal agencies.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to thank Chairman Kohl and
Senator Blunt for their hard work on this bill. They had to make tough
choices because of their tight allocation. I commend them for the
choices they made and agree with them. They have my full support for
this bill.
I especially want to thank them for increasing the Food and Drug
Administration's budget. They provided $2.5 billion which is $50
million over this year's funding level. Twenty-five cents for every
dollar spent by consumers is for FDA-regulated products, over $1
trillion worth of goods bought each year.
This funding increase will strengthen our food safety infrastructure
so that the FDA can meet its increased responsibilities. It gives the
FDA new defense capabilities to hold imported and domestic foods to the
same standards. It also will help Federal, State, and local officials
prevent and more efficiently detect food safety problems. Finally, it
increases the FDA and State and local workforce capacity to prevent
deadly outbreaks.
Employees at the FDA are on the front lines every day to stop food
safety outbreaks in their tracks and get unsafe foods off of
supermarket shelves. We rely on the FDA more than ever to make sure the
drugs and medical devices we depend upon are safe and effective.
I have been a longtime fighter for the FDA. I have fought for years
for the right facilities and the right resources. I will continue to
fight for these hard-working employees. This increase will help the FDA
continue to be the gold standard in upholding drug, device, cosmetic,
and food safety.
They also make nutrition assistance programs a priority, which is so
important in these difficult economic times. For Women, Infants and
Children, they provide $6.6 billion. This funding level will meet the
needs of low-income pregnant women, infants, and children under 5 by
providing nutritious foods, dietary supplements, healthy eating
information, and medical referrals.
This bill is also very important to Maryland. It supports the hard-
working Federal employees at FDA and the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center. Headquartered in Silver Spring, MD, FDA employs 9,400
people, while BARC, located in Beltsville, MD, employs 975 Federal
employees, including 250 scientists. BARC is the flagship campus of the
Agricultural Research Service. It conducts cutting-edge research to
develop and transfer solutions to our Nation's most pressing
agricultural problems. This research is impacting not just farmers but
every American as it relates to food safety, nutrition, and obesity.
They keep BARC funded at existing funding levels and protect these
jobs.
They also provide $16.5 million for farmers market nutrition
programs. This program gives WIC recipients vouchers to use at farmers
markets and roadside stands to buy locally
[[Page S6853]]
grown fruits and vegetables. This program helps low-income women and
children as well as our local farmers. In 2009, Maryland distributed
$403,000 vouchers to 42,000 WIC clients. This also helped 260 Maryland
farmers sell their crops.
In addition, Maryland is home to two land grant institutions:
University of Maryland at College Park and University of Maryland
Eastern Shore. They rejected the House cuts to land grant university
research and extension programs and keep them in good standing. These
programs support food and agriculture research, provide peer-reviewed,
competitively awarded grants, help attract top-notch scientists, fund
youth programs, including 4-H, and reach out and solve community needs
for small farmers and business owners.
Maryland's No. 1 industry is agriculture. We have both the
traditional industry sectors and nontraditional: everything from
poultry, to dairy to organic farms and vineyards and a specialty
nursery industry. This bill supports these farmers and small business
owners, but it also supports all Americans by protecting our public
health and safety when it comes to our food supply, drugs, and medical
devices.
Mr. President, I also wish to thank Chairman Murray and Senator
Collins for their hard work on this bill. I say to the Senators, you
worked together in a bipartisan way and with collegiality. You had a
tight allocation and had to make tough choices. But you did an
outstanding job, and you have my full support for this bill.
I support this bill because it is a jobs bill. It provides formula
funding to the States for our highways, byways, and subways. According
to the U.S. Department of Transportation, every $1 million spent on
transportation creates 13 jobs.
This bill will hire the construction workers and engineers to widen
our highways and build new bridges. The bill also provides $550 million
for TIGER Grants, the discretionary grant program begun in the economic
recovery bill. This competitive grant program funds road, rail,
transit, and port projects.
This bill provides nearly $16 billion for the Federal Aviation
Administration, the current year funding level. This funding supports
our air traffic controllers, air safety personnel, and construction
jobs at our airports.
This bill also provides funding to maintain the Maritime Security
Program. This program maintains 60 U.S. flagships, crewed by U.S.
citizens, to service both commercial and national security needs.
This bill provides $120 million for Choice Neighborhoods. Choice
Neighborhoods uses the lessons of HOPE VI. It builds upon them to reach
more communities and turn ZIP Codes of poverty into healthy, vibrant
communities.
It also provides much-needed funding for veterans' housing, a total
of $75 million, to get them the housing help they need. Our Nation owes
our vets a debt of gratitude, and I will keep fighting to show that
gratitude not just with words, but with deeds.
For Maryland, this bill guarantees $750 million in Federal
transportation formula funding. Within this amount, Maryland receives
$600 million for highways and $150 million for transit. It also
supports 9,750 jobs. About half of Maryland's highway and transit
capital projects are funded with these Federal dollars.
In addition, this bill funds Metro here in our Nation's capital,
providing $150 million for safety improvements, including new rail
cars, track, and signal upgrades. It also guarantees Metro's $228
million in Federal formula funding for capital improvements. This
funding combined supports nearly 5,000 public and private sector jobs.
Infrastructure and housing investments are vital to sustain economic
growth and create jobs. I support Senate action on multiyear
transportation and aviation authorization bills and infrastructure bank
legislation. But agreement and passage of these bills is going to take
some time. This appropriations bill is a jobs bill we can pass now to
get Americans back to work in the near term.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I previously filed committee allocations
and budgetary aggregates pursuant to section 106 of the Budget Control
Act of 2011. I am further adjusting some of those levels, specifically
the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2012
and the budgetary aggregates for fiscal year 2012.
Section 101 of the Budget Control Act allows for various adjustments
to the statutory limits on discretionary spending, while section 106(d)
allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to make revisions to
allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments.
Senator Lautenberg has offered Senate amendment No. 836 to the
appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and related agencies. That amendment includes $365
million in 2012 funding that is designated for disaster relief pursuant
to the Budget Control Act of 2011. CBO estimates that budget authority
would result in $18 million in outlays in 2012.
In addition, Senator Gillibrand has offered Senate amendment No. 869
to the Agriculture appropriations bill. That amendment includes $110
million in 2012 funding that is designated for disaster relief pursuant
to the Budget Control Act of 2011. CBO estimates that budget authority
would result in $44 million in outlays in 2012.
Therefore, in total, I am revising the allocation to the Committee on
Appropriations and to the budgetary aggregates by $475 million in
budget authority and $62 million in outlays.
I ask unanimous consent that the following tables detailing the
changes to the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and the
budgetary aggregates be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
DETAIL ON ADJUSTMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2012 ALLOCATIONS TO COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 106 OF
THE BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overseas
$s in billions Program Disaster Emergency contingency Total
integrity relief operations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendments--Lautenberg SA 836 &
Gillibrand SA 869:
Budget Authority............ 0.000 0.475 0.000 0.000 0.475
Outlays..................... 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.062
Memorandum 1: Breakdown of Above
Adjustments by Category:
Security Budget Authority... 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Nonsecurity Budget Authority 0.000 0.475 0.000 0.000 0.475
General Purpose Outlays..... 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.062
Memorandum 2: Cumulative
Adjustments (Includes
Previously Filed Adjustments):
Budget Authority............ 0.893 8.588 0.000 126.544 136.025
Outlays..................... 0.774 1.669 -0.007 63.568 66.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________