[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6520-S6525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATIONS
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today the majority leader was required to
take the extraordinary step of asking for unanimous consent to secure
Senate confirmation votes for 17 district court nominations. Before the
American people elected Barack Obama as our President, district court
nominees were generally confirmed within a couple of weeks of being
reported by the Judiciary Committee. This was true of those nominated
by Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents. Deference was
traditionally afforded to home State Senators and district court
nominees supported by home State Senators were almost always confirmed
unanimously.
However, Senate Republicans have raised the level of partisanship so
that these Federal trial court nominees have now become wrapped around
the axle of partisanship. Despite a vacancy crisis that threatens the
ability of Federal courts to provide justice for the American people,
Senate Republicans now refuse to allow a vote on any of the 17 pending
district court nominees, including 12 that have been declared judicial
emergency vacancies. Senate Republicans' across-the-board obstruction
of President Obama's judicial nominees that began with their filibuster
of his very first nominee continues. For the first time I can recall,
even district court nominees with support from Republican home State
Senators face
[[Page S6521]]
months of delay if not outright opposition from the Senate Republican
leadership and Senate Republicans.
The long delays and backlog we are seeing on the Federal trial courts
and Senate Republicans' refusal to vote on so many consensus judicial
nominees before we recess for the upcoming Presidential election are
entirely without precedent. The Thurmond rule has never been applied to
stop votes on consensus district court nominees. In September 2008 we
reported and confirmed 10 of President Bush's district court nominees
and left none on the Senate calendar as we headed into that
Presidential election. In contrast, this year we are still waiting on
votes for district court nominees reported by the Judiciary Committee
in April, June, July, and August. All but 1 of these 17 district court
nominees was reported with significant bipartisan support, all but 3
nearly unanimously.
The partisan refusal to allow votes on consensus nominees has become
standard operating procedure for Senate Republicans. In each of the
last 2 years, Senate Republicans refused to follow the Senate's
traditional practice of clearing the calendar of noncontroversial
nominees. As a result, there were 19 judicial nominees pending without
a final confirmation vote at the end of 2010 and another 19 left
without a vote at the end of 2011. Due to this latest refusal to
consent to vote, Senate Republicans are ensuring that the Senate will
recess for the election without voting on 21 judicial nominees ready
for final Senate action. The result is that for the first time in
decades Federal courts are likely to have more vacancies at the end of
these 4 years than at the beginning of the President's term. Federal
judicial vacancies have been at historically high levels for years,
remaining near or above 80 for nearly the entire first term of the
President. Judicial vacancies today are more than 2\1/2\ times as high
as they were at this point in President Bush's first term, with nearly
1 out of every 11 Federal judgeships currently vacant.
I urge Senator Toomey, Senator Kirk, Senator Rubio, Senator Coburn,
Senator Inhofe, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, Senator Collins, and
Senator Snowe, all of whom have judicial nominees on the calendar ready
for a final Senate vote, to reason with their leadership about this
obstruction. I ask other Republican Senators who know better to weigh
in with their leadership. This is wrong for the country, damaging to
the Federal courts, and harmful for the American people looking to our
courts for justice.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my statement a column by Russell Wheeler entitled ``The
Case for Confirming District Court Judges'' that appeared in Politico
on Wednesday and notes the unprecedented and destructive nature of this
obstruction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. I have served in the Senate for 37 years, and I have never
seen so many judicial nominees, reported with bipartisan support, be
denied a simple up-or-down vote for 4 months, 5 months, 6 months, even
11 months. And if there was any doubt that Senate Republicans insist on
being the party of no, their current decision to deny votes on these
highly qualified, noncontroversial district court nominees--while we
are in the middle of a judicial vacancy crisis--shows what they stand
for. They care more about opposing this President than helping the
American people.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Politico, Sept. 18, 2012]
The Case for Confirming District Court Judges
(By Russell Wheeler)
The accepted wisdom on Congress is that the presidential
campaign is likely to crowd out most real work until after
Nov. 6, when all its focus abruptly changes to the fiscal
cliff.
There is, though, one important noncontroversial matter
that the Senate should take up now--as have previous Senates
at this time: confirming district judges.
A government that can't do its mundane business is surely
unlikely to be able to deal with more controversial problems.
History shows that the Senate should be able to confirm a
respectable number of long-standing district court
nominations before Election Day--certainly before
adjournment. If it cannot, this may signal that the past four
years of delayed and confrontational nominations have not
been an aberration but represent the new normal of district
court confirmations.
Sixty-one of the nation's 673 lifetime appointment district
court judgeships are vacant. President Barack Obama has
submitted nominees to fill 24 of the vacancies. Seventeen of
the 24 have cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee and are
awaiting final action by the full Senate.
As of Sept. 10, the Senate had confirmed 126 of Obama's
district nominees--81 percent. In comparison, President
George W. Bush had a 97 percent district confirmation success
rate in his first four years, and President Bill Clinton an
87 percent rate.
If the Senate confirms 10 of the 17 Obama nominees, this
would lift his four-year success rate to equal Clinton's.
Confirming all 17 would lift it to 91 percent.
Rates aside, however, even if all 17 were confirmed, Obama
would have made roughly 20 fewer district appointees than
Clinton or Bush. Obama has submitted fewer nominees.
Extended vacancies often mean long delays, especially in
civil cases. They often mean full caseloads for judges in
their 70s and beyond--despite statutory promises that, at
that age, judges who have put in substantial service are
entitled to scale back.
Filling judicial vacancies is part of the business of
government, and like much of that business, it is more
mundane than dramatic. Federal district caseloads consist
largely of commercial disputes and federal crimes like
immigration law violations--issues important to litigants and
collectively important to all of us. They are part of how our
society resolves disputes and help set the framework for
commercial and social intercourse.
But you might say, judges can't get confirmed this close to
a presidential election because opposition senators are
hoping their guy will soon be in the White House and make his
own nominations to those vacancies.
That may be true now for court of appeals nominees -- you
have to go back to the first Bush administration to find a
circuit confirmation after July of a presidential election
year -- but not for district courts. There's plenty of
precedent for late-election year confirmations.
In 1980, 1984 and 1992--when Presidents Jimmy Carter,
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were up for reelection--
the Senate each time confirmed roughly 10 district court
nominees between the political conventions and election day.
That number dropped to zero in 1996 under Clinton but shot up
to six in 2004 under Bush.
In years when the incumbent president wasn't on the ballot,
the Senate also confirmed district judges, including 10 in
September 2008--even as Obama's victory seemed increasingly
likely.
There's plenty of recent precedent for confirming at least
the 17 pending Obama nominees. But the past four years of
district confirmations haven't followed precedent.
Not only is the confirmation rate lower, at least for now,
but time from nomination to confirmation has spiked. Eight
percent of Clinton's district confirmations in the first four
years took more than 180 days, as did 27 percent of Bush's.
But it's now up to 67 percent for Obama.
The increase in time has been matched by an increase in
contentiousness. All of Clinton's district appointees were
confirmed by voice vote -- even those who merited more
attention, like the subsequently impeached and convicted
Thomas Porteous of New Orleans. All but four of Bush's
appointees were approved by either voice or unanimous vote.
Of the four, one got 20 ``no'' votes and one got 46.
Most of Obama's appointees have also been confirmed with
no, or token, opposition--even those who waited a long time.
But 11 received more than 20 ``no'' votes. It's hard to
believe, however, that the quality of Obama appointees
plunged so decisively compared with those of his immediate
predecessors.
So district confirmations--especially in double digits--in
the next several months may be iffy, and those who do get
confirmed will have waited considerably longer than late-year
confirmations in previous administrations.
We've come to accept, or at least recognize, as the new
normal that only six or seven out of every 10 circuit
nominees will get Senate approval. Are the district courts
next?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
VAWA
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to again raise my concerns
about and the desire to see action in the House to pass the Senate bill
reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. We need to continue this
critical funding for survivors of domestic violence.
In the discussions on the Senate floor, we have heard about the
protections offered in the Senate bill that have not been included in
the bill the House has pending. They are protections that would help
women on college
[[Page S6522]]
campuses, women on tribal lands, gay and lesbian victims, and
immigrants. However, it is really important for us to remember not just
those provisions but all of the other ways the Violence Against Women
Act has benefited not just the victims of domestic violence but really
all of us because domestic violence isn't just a women's issue. It
affects all of us. It affects our entire economy. It affects our
families. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that the direct
health care costs associated with domestic violence are about $4.1
billion every single year. We know this is a conservative estimate
because so many of the victims never come forward.
The protections offered by the Violence Against Women Act have proven
to be absolutely essential in preventing abuse. Last week was the 18th
anniversary of the original passage of VAWA, so this is a good time to
reflect on the progress we have made.
Over the past 18 years, the reporting of incidents of domestic
violence has increased by 51 percent. At the same time, according to
the FBI, the number of women who have been killed by an intimate
partner has decreased by 34 percent. So clearly it is having some
effect. Researchers at the North Carolina School of Public Health
estimate that VAWA saved $12.6 billion in its first 7 years alone. So
even if one doesn't support the legislation because it does good work
for families, this is a bill that is also a good investment.
This is about telling the victims of violence that we stand with them
because having safe, healthy citizens benefits all of us. We all do
better when fewer women are going to the emergency room, are missing
work or giving up their children in order to protect those children
from violence at home. We are all in this together.
I have had a chance as we have had this debate in the Senate to visit
a number of crisis centers in New Hampshire--centers that benefit
directly from the funding in the Violence Against Women Act. Recently I
visited the city of Keene's Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention
and had a chance to speak with one of the caseworkers there and with
two of the survivors. Those two women told me what it was like as they
were trying to figure out how to leave their abusers. I asked them:
What would have happened if this center wasn't here? Both of them said
they had nowhere else to go. One of the women said: My husband would
have killed me. That was how desperate she was.
While I was there, I also had a chance to meet some of the children
who were staying at the center. I wish to take a minute to talk about
how important this is for them, the children who were witnesses of
domestic violence or who, as the result of that violence, are victims
themselves.
Centers all over New Hampshire and the United States have advocacy
programs that are funded by VAWA that offer support groups for
children. Children are particularly vulnerable and ill-equipped to deal
with the trauma of domestic violence. This is trauma that affects them
for their entire lives.
A study by the World Health Organization found that children raised
in households where domestic violence occurred are more likely to have
behavioral problems, to drop out of school early, to experience
juvenile delinquency. It is not surprising.
A child who witnesses domestic violence between parents is more
likely to view violence as an acceptable method of conflict resolution.
Boys who witness domestic violence are more likely to become abusers,
and girls who witness domestic violence are more likely to become
victims of domestic violence as adults. One advocate at the Bridges
Crisis Center in Nashua, NH, works to prevent this cycle by providing
safety planning for children. She teaches them they can live a life
that is free of violence. This free preventive care for children is
made possible by a grant from VAWA. Our children deserve this. This is
why we need to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. This is
about women who are in danger, about children and families who are at
risk.
One of the stories I found particularly touching when I was at
Bridges was about a young boy named Brian. The caseworker told me that
Brian was really nervous about going back to school. He was supposed to
bring with him a story about something fun he had done over the summer,
but he had been in the shelter at Bridges with his mother and it really
hadn't been a very fun summer. So the child advocate organized a
barbeque in the park across the street, and everybody from the center
came and joined in that barbeque and gave him a happy memory that he
could take with him to the first day of school. This is the kind of
healing we need more of. We can help this continue by reauthorizing the
Violence Against Women Act.
I hope that as Senators go home for the next 6 weeks, as we go back
to our States and travel around and hear from people in our States the
issues they are concerned about, we won't forget about the task we have
at hand when we come back. We need to reauthorize the Violence Against
Women Act. We need to get the House to join with us in passing the
Senate bill so we can include those expanded protections that are
needed so much by women and families across this country. I know the
Presiding Officer joins with me in recognizing that we still have time
to get this done this year.
Thank you, Mr. President. I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Social Security
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wish to spend a few minutes talking
about an issue that I believe has not gotten the attention it deserves,
especially in the midst of the contentious Presidential campaign we are
witnessing, and that is the need to discuss a program which is probably
the most successful social program in the modern history of the United
States, a program that provides dignity and security to well over 50
million Americans, and that is Social Security.
Just this afternoon, 29 Senators sent a letter to all of our
colleagues that says:
We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or
current beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package.
Let's be very clear. Our country does have a serious deficit problem.
Our deficit this year is about $1 trillion, and our national debt is
$16 trillion. That is a serious problem. However, let's be equally
clear in understanding that Social Security has not contributed one
nickel to the Federal deficit. So despite what we are going to hear
tonight on cable television or some of the speeches my colleagues will
give, let me reiterate: Social Security has not contributed one nickel
to our Federal deficit.
In fact, the Social Security trust fund today, according to the
Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus--let me
repeat that: a $2.7 trillion surplus--and can pay out 100 percent of
all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years.
Although many Americans now take Social Security for granted, we
should never underestimate the incredibly positive impact Social
Security has had on our Nation. In fact, one could well argue that
Social Security has been the Nation's most successful social program--
certainly in the modern history of this country.
In the 77 years since Social Security was signed into law, it has
been enormously successful in reducing poverty for senior citizens.
Before the advent of Social Security, back in the 1920s, early 1930s,
about half of the senior citizens in this country lived in poverty,
some in dismal poverty. Today, while the number is too high, the number
of seniors living in poverty is less than 10 percent. We have gone from
50 percent to less than 10 percent. That, to my mind, is a real success
story and something of which this Nation should be incredibly proud.
Today Social Security not only provides retirement benefits for 34
million Americans but also enables millions of people with disabilities
and widows, widowers, and children to live in dignity and security. I
hear in Vermont very often--and I expect the Presiding Officer hears in
New Hampshire--about young people who have been able to go to college,
live with some sense of security, despite the death of a parent,
precisely because of Social Security.
[[Page S6523]]
Yet, despite all of these success stories, today Social Security is
on the chopping block. Millions of Americans, when asked in polls, make
it very clear--including people all across the political spectrum--
saying: No, we should not cut Social Security. Millions of people
understand that Social Security--and this is simply an extraordinary
record--has been there in good times and in bad times. And in 77 years,
not one American, no matter what the state of the economy, has not
received all of the benefits to which he or she is entitled. It is an
insurance program that has worked, and worked extraordinarily well.
What we are looking at right now are attacks on Social Security
coming from Mitt Romney, from Paul Ryan, and from virtually every
Republican in Congress, who are calling for major cuts in Social
Security. Many of them, including Romney and Ryan, also want to begin
the process of privatizing Social Security and turning it over to Wall
Street, putting the retirement dreams of millions of Americans at risk.
They are also pushing to increase the retirement age to 68 or 69,
forcing older Americans who have worked their entire lives--sometimes
in physically demanding jobs in construction; maybe they worked in
restaurants being waitresses their whole lives and now some folks want
these people to still be working at the age of 68 or 69.
While virtually every Republican in Congress is pushing to cut Social
Security benefits, there are also some Democrats who are considering
cutting Social Security as part of some deficit reduction grand
bargain. I strongly disagree with that approach, and I hope President
Obama will make it clear, as he did 4 years ago, that he also disagrees
with that approach.
Let me quote what President Obama said 4 years ago when he was
Senator Obama running for the White House. This is what he said:
John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer
for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut
cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let
me be clear: I will not do either.
End of quote of Senator Barack Obama on September 6, 2008. What then-
Senator Obama said in 2008 was exactly right, and I hope that now, in
2012, we will hear the President reiterate that position.
One of the most talked about ideas, when we hear discussions about
cutting Social Security--and nobody outside of the beltway has a clue
about what this means. I can tell you, I have been to many meetings in
Vermont, and I have asked Vermonters: Do you know what the chained CPI
is? And nobody has a clue. But one of the most talked about ways to cut
Social Security is moving toward a so-called chained CPI, which changes
how cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security benefits and
veterans benefits are calculated.
So what it does right now: There is a formula by which the government
determines what kind of COLA--cost-of-living adjustment--seniors and
veterans will get. It is a complicated formula. But what these guys
want to do is cut back, readjust that formula so that the benefits will
be less.
People who support this concept of a chained CPI, such as Alan
Simpson, Erskine Bowles, and Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson--and
Peterson is one of the guys, a billionaire on Wall Street, putting in
huge amounts of money in order to cut Social Security and other
important programs--they believe Social Security COLAs and COLAs for
veterans benefits are too generous, and they want to cut those COLA
benefits.
Well, I will tell you something. When I talk to seniors in the State
of Vermont and I say there are people in Washington who think their
COLA benefits are too generous, usually they laugh. The reason they
laugh is that for 2 out of the last 3 years, they have not received any
COLA whatsoever--nothing--while at the same time their prescription
drug costs and their health care costs have been soaring. And they look
at me and say: What? Are these people crazy? If we have not gotten a
COLA in 2 out of the last 3 years, while our expenses have risen, how
do they think that COLA formula is now too generous?
Let's also be very clear that when we talk about this chained CPI,
this means not only cuts for seniors, it means cuts for veterans, and
that is an issue we have not talked about very much.
So let me talk about what the chained CPI means. It means--and they
want to implement this, by the way, very shortly. Romney and Ryan are
talking about changing Medicare, as we know, over a 10-year period, and
I think that is a disastrous idea. But what these guys now are talking
about are immediate cuts in the COLA, starting as soon as they can pass
that legislation.
What it would mean is that for a senior citizen who is 65 years of
age today, by the time that senior reaches 75, there would be a $560-a-
year cut compared to what they otherwise would have gotten. Some folks
here on Capitol Hill may not think $560 is a lot, but if you are
struggling on $14,000 or $15,000 a year, that is quite a hit. And
once that 65-year-old, in 20 years, reaches 85, that cut will be
approximately $1,000 a year.
Now, I have a problem; in a nation that has the most unequal
distribution of wealth and income, where the rich are getting richer
and their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, some folks
around here, pushed by Wall Street billionaires, by the way, say: Hey,
we have a great idea on how we could deal with deficit reduction: Let's
tell a senior living on $15,000 a year, Social Security, that we are
going to cut them by $1,000 in 20 years. I think really that is morally
grotesque, and it is also bad economics.
But this chained CPI would not only impact seniors, it would also
impact 3 million veterans. Three million veterans would be impacted by
this chained CPI. For example, a veteran who put his life on the line
to defend this country and who was severely wounded in action and who
has a 100-percent service-connected disability is currently eligible to
receive about $32,000 a year from the VA. Under the chained CPI, this
disabled veteran, who started receiving VA disability benefits at age
30, would see his benefits cut by more than $1,300 a year at age 45,
$1,800 a year at age 55, and $2,260 a year at age 65.
In other words, moving toward a chained CPI would be a disgraceful
effort to balance the budget on some of the most vulnerable people in
this country, including people who have suffered severe wounds and
disabilities in defending this country. Those are not the people upon
whom you balance the budget.
Madam President, I will conclude by reminding the American people
that when Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, this country had a
$236 billion surplus, and the projections were that that surplus was
going to grow every single year. But some of the same people in
Congress right now, including Congressman Paul Ryan, who is running for
Vice President, who are so concerned about the deficit, who want to cut
Social Security, end Medicare as we know it, make devastating cuts in
Medicaid and education--these very same people voted to go to war in
Iraq and Afghanistan and not pay one nickel for those wars but put them
on the credit card and increase the deficit. These same people who now
want to go after wounded veterans gave huge tax breaks to the
wealthiest people in this country, adding to the deficit. They passed a
Medicare Part D prescription drug program and forgot to pay for that as
well. So, to my mind, I have a real problem with folks who went to war
without paying for it, gave tax breaks to billionaires without paying
for it, passed a Medicare Part D prescription drug program without
paying for it, and now they say we have to cut Social Security,
Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the needs of working families and
low-income people. I think that is absolute hypocrisy.
So our charge is that instead of listening to the Wall Street
billionaires who want to move to deficit reduction on the backs of the
elderly, the children, the sick, the poor, wounded veterans, there are
better ways to do deficit reduction. I hope that as a Congress we will
come together and say that when the wealthiest people are doing
phenomenally well, yes, they are going to have to pay more in taxes.
When a quarter of the corporations in this country pay nothing in
taxes, yes, they are going to have to pay their fair share of taxes.
When we are losing $100 billion a year because of tax havens in the
Cayman Islands and elsewhere, we
[[Page S6524]]
are going to have to deal with that issue before we cut programs on
which elderly people and veterans and children depend.
So we have a lot of work in front of us, but the bottom line is that
I will do everything I can to make sure we do not balance the budget on
the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor. That is
immoral, and it is also bad economic policy.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record the letter signed by 29 Members of the Senate opposing cuts in
Social Security.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Colleague: We are writing to inform you that we will
oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current
beneficiaries in any deficit reduction package.
Under long-standing Federal law, Social Security is not
part of the Federal budget and cannot contribute to the
federal deficit. This reflects Social Security's structure as
an independent, self-financed insurance program, in which
worker contributions, not general taxes, finance benefits. In
our view, it is essential that Social Security's status as a
separate entity be fully maintained.
Contrary to some claims, Social Security is not the cause
of our nation's deficit problem. Not only does the program
operate independently, but it is prohibited from borrowing.
Social Security must pay all benefits from its own trust
fund. If there are insufficient funds to pay out full
benefits, benefits are automatically reduced to the level
supported by the program's own revenues. Social Security
cannot drive up the deficit by tapping general revenues to
pay benefits.
Even though Social Security operates in a fiscally
responsible manner, some still advocate deep benefit cuts and
seem convinced that Social Security hands out lavish welfare
checks. But Social Security is not welfare. Seniors earned
their benefits by working hard and paying into the system.
Meanwhile, the average monthly Social Security benefit is
only about $1,200, quite low by international standards.
For all these reasons, we believe it would be a serious
mistake to cut Social Security benefits for current or future
beneficiaries as part of a deficit reduction package. To be
sure, Social Security has its own long-term challenges that
will need to be addressed in the decades ahead. But the
budget and Social Security are separate, and should be
considered separately.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Bernard Sanders; Harry Reid; Charles E. Schumer; Sheldon
Whitehouse; Sherrod Brown; Patrick Leahy; Debbie
Stabenow; Al Franken; Jeff Merkley; Barbara Mikulski;
Jack Reed; Mark Begich; Ron Wyden; Ben Cardin; Richard
Blumenthal; Tom Harkin; Frank R. Lautenberg; Patty
Murray; Barbara Boxer; Daniel K. Akaka; John D.
Rockefeller IV; Tom Udall; Carl Levin; Joe Manchin III;
Maria Cantwell; Tim Johnson; Daniel K. Inouye; Robert
Menendez; Kirsten Gillibrand.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the
amendment I have filed to the House continuing resolution, House Joint
Resolution 117, which we are currently considering.
I understand that House and Senate leadership came to an agreement
that seeks to keep the government running for the next 6 months and I
want to applaud their willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion to
reach an agreement that avoids a government shutdown. Still, after the
House passed this funding bill, I was greatly concerned that emergency
funding for Colorado and other states impacted by natural disasters
this year was left out.
In my state, these funds are essential to protecting and restoring
critical watersheds that were damaged by the most devastating wildfires
in Colorado's history--which if left unaddressed present serious
flooding, landslide and other risks that threaten the lives of
residents in our state.
My amendment would provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture $27.9
million in emergency funding to mitigate watershed damage through the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program, or EWP, in areas that have been
presidentially declared disaster areas as authorized under the Stafford
Act.
As of September 18, 2012, the USDA estimated $126.7 million in
funding needs for EWP projects in 15 States. Of that total, $27.9
million is needed to mitigate the aftermath of presidentially declared
disaster areas in Louisiana, Florida, Oklahoma and Colorado, as
authorized under the Stafford Act. Currently, Stafford Act funds for
EWP have been depleted and as I have noted the House Continuing
Resolution provided no emergency funds for EWP. Mr. President, the need
for this amendment to provide emergency funding is critical and let me
tell you why.
The two most devastating Colorado fires this season, High Park and
Waldo Canyon, burned more than 100,000 acres and led to the
catastrophic loss of property and regrettably loss of life. Now as
Coloradans pick up the pieces, the burned and barren areas present an
additional threat.
Without site rehabilitation and restoration, the watersheds that
provide municipal and agricultural water supplies are at risk from
landslides, flooding and erosion, which could result in serious
infrastructure damage, water supply disruptions and even loss of life.
Coloradans unfortunately have already experienced some of these
effects. For example, in the Poudre River, which drains part of the
area burned by the High Park fire, the ash and runoff from the fire
caused the water flowing into drinking water filtration plants to turn
black. This forced the downstream city of Fort Collins to shut off
their water intakes for over 100 days and further downstream the city
of Greeley was forced to shut off their water intakes for 36 days and
use only a small fraction of their normal intake for an additional 38
days.
How much more of an emergency need do we have to show when our most
basic resource--drinking water--is threatened?
I will give you one more example. After the devastating Waldo Canyon
Fire that burned several homes in Colorado Springs and surrounding
areas, the flood potential in the burned areas is now 20 times higher
than before the fire. So now folks in the burned area and others
downstream could see a 100-year flood from the same amount of rainfall
that would have caused a 5-year rainfall before the wildfires occurred.
Already property owners in the Colorado Springs vicinity have received
at least four flash-flood warnings since the fire. The need for
stabilizing this ground and restoring the burned areas on both federal
and private land is critical to public safety, public health and the
prevention of another disaster.
This is why I have filed an amendment to provide additional emergency
funds to the Emergency Watershed Protection Program. This program
provides funding and technical support to restore and stabilize soil in
critical watersheds in the aftermath of severe wild fires and other
natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes--which are also
important to many members from our coastal states.
I understand that there will not be an opportunity to amend the
pending bill as a result of an agreement made with the House to avoid a
government shutdown, so I will not attempt to call up my amendment.
But, I want to ensure that my colleagues here understand the gravity of
the situation faced by those who supply safe drinking water to the
people of Colorado, by those who store water in our reservoirs to
irrigate, and by those who fear a rainfall could devastate their
livelihoods again after already experiencing significant loss from
wildfire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Order of Business
Mr. REID. Madam President, discussions continue about processing the
business we need to address before we leave. As I have said repeatedly,
we need to do just a couple things before we break for the elections.
We need to pass the CR. We need to vote on proceeding to the
sportsmen's package.
To help move the CR, we have been told that the Republicans now have
decided they are willing to vote sometime on the Paul bill on foreign
aid and also the Iran containment resolution. As I said yesterday, we
are willing to do that.
In the worst case, under the rules, the cloture vote on the CR would
occur tomorrow night--at 1 a.m. on Saturday. Once we invoke cloture on
the continuing resolution, the 30 hours postcloture would run out at
about 7:30 or 8 o'clock in the morning Sunday, and we would vote then
to pass the CR, which would be immediately followed by a vote on the
sportsmen's package.
I am happy to continue these discussions. We are working to see if we
can schedule these votes to occur at a time that is more convenient to
Senators. I
[[Page S6525]]
hope we can have more to report on that tomorrow. It appears at this
stage there is no agreement on having any votes tomorrow, so we may
have to finish our work tomorrow, beginning tomorrow night, very late.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________