[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15453-15460]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Sununu):
  S. 3279. A bill to provide funding for the Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
deny the deduction for income attributable to

[[Page 15454]]

domestic production of oil, gas, or primary products thereof for major 
integrated oil companies; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GREGG. I want to talk about the specific reason I have come to 
the floor, which is to talk about the fear, quite honestly, in colder 
States in this country about how we are going to get through the 
winter. The price of home heating oil, which is the dominant form of 
energy in our State, the way people keep their houses warm and 
habitable in the winter, has tripled. People who are working for a 
living, and low-income individuals, have no idea how they are going to 
meet the cost of their energy bill this winter. It is going to 
overwhelm us as a region. We need to do something about it. There are a 
couple of levels where we need to act. We do need to increase 
significantly the funding for low-income energy assistance. This is a 
crisis. The simple fact is we should increase that funding.
  At the same time, we do need to do that in a responsible way, by 
paying for that increase in funding so we do not end up putting the 
cost of buying energy to heat homes today on our children and our 
children's children tomorrow. That is not fair to them. So we ought to 
come forward with a proposal. What I am going to do today is introduce 
a bill which increases home heating oil assistance by $2.5 billion, 
which will double that program, but pays for it in a reasonable way, 
essentially by repealing the section 199 regulation that gives certain 
deductions to energy production companies which they no longer need 
with oil being at $130 a barrel.
  It is a significant increase in funding. It is a level that Senator 
Sanders has introduced in a bill, freestanding, that is not paid for, 
which I have also cosponsored, because I hope when that bill comes 
forward, I will be able to offer my pay-fors to it. But it is the 
number we need and we clearly have to have in order to have any chance 
this winter of making sure that low-income people in New Hampshire and 
throughout the Northeast and the country can survive this winter in a 
reasonable way.
  Secondly, we need to address the issue of middle-income Americans, 
people in New Hampshire who are working for a living and who do not 
meet these low-income thresholds, who have an equal amount of fear 
about how they are going to pay for the energy to heat their home, when 
they see the cost of their energy bill double or triple or maybe even 
quadruple.
  I hope to have next week a tax credit that will be available to those 
working families who are of moderate income, who have an income which 
they cannot adjust enough in order to be able to absorb the huge cost 
of this event of the runup in the cost of energy. I hope to be able to 
introduce that in the near future. But today I am introducing this 
bill, which increases home heating assistance, the LIHEAP program, by 
$2.5 billion and pays for it, which is the responsible way to do it. In 
addition, I am strongly supporting Senate initiatives which will 
increase our commitment to the production as a nation and conservation. 
Because by doing that, we will draw down, we will significantly reduce 
the price of gasoline and the price of oil in our country. Because that 
speculation, which is legitimate, which is based off the projected 
demands and the lack of supply, will adjust to the fact that greater 
supply is going to come into the market. That will reduce the forces 
which are forcing the price demands up and as a result have a positive 
impact on reducing the cost of a barrel of oil.
  We need to do a lot around here. We do need to address speculation 
when it is there and when it is inappropriate and when it is driving up 
the price in an arbitrary and unfair way. We also need to address the 
issue of more production and create more production. We are looking for 
energy where we can do it safely and energy efficiently and also in an 
environmentally sound way, such as offshore or with oil shale.
  We have more oil shale reserves than Saudi Arabia--three times Saudi 
Arabia's reserves we have in three States: Wyoming, Idaho, and 
Colorado. And we should not be sending our hard-earned money to 
countries, which in many instances do not even like us to purchase 
their oil products. We should be buying it here in the United States 
where we can produce it. In addition, of course, we need to 
aggressively pursue a course of conservation and renewables.
  I wish to note that the title of this bill is the Home Energy 
Assistance Today Act, or HEAT. Obviously, the purpose of this bill is 
to make it possible for citizens throughout the country, but especially 
in New England, who are of low income, to be able to heat their homes 
this winter and to afford the cost of the energy it takes to heat their 
homes.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 3280. A bill to increase refining capacity and the supply of fuel, 
to open and preserve access to oil and gas, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I am introducing two pieces of legislation 
today, S. 3280 and S. 3281. In one bill I join with my colleagues in 
proposing legislation to open new development in ANWR, offshore, the 
Rocky Mountain oil shale, and preserves access to development in the 
Canadian tar sands. It also contains my Gas PRICE Act, which 
streamlines, implements deadlines, and offers EDA grants to communities 
to encourage development of refineries involved in coal liquification 
or coal to liquids processing, renewable fuels, and crude oil and other 
petroleum products. It also includes accelerated depreciation for 
cellulosic biofuel plant property for facilities and equipment used to 
produce switchgrass and other dedicated energy crop seed for the 
developing cellolosic biofuels industry. Finally, it includes a third 
title which I am also introducing as a free standing bill, the Drive 
America on Natural Gas Act.
  The Drive America on Natural Gas Act expands RFS Definitions.
  The bill expands the definition in the Renewable Fuels Standard to 
allow the use of CNG and LNG fuels to meet the mandates.
  The current corn based ethanol mandate is overly aggressive with 
mounting questions surrounding ethanol's effects on world food prices, 
livestock feed prices, its economic sustainability, its transportation 
and infrastructure needs, its water usage, and numerous other 
environmental issues.
  By broadening the scope of the Renewable Fuels Standard to include 
natural gas, we encourage the use of a proven, clean, and economical 
alternative fuel and also make the current RFS mandates achievable.
  Additionally, it sends a signal to the Nation's automakers and fuels 
industries that natural gas is a competitive option as a mainstream 
transportation fuel.
  GM, Ford, and Chrysler already make natural gas powered vehicles, yet 
they don't sell them in the States. GM alone already makes 18 different 
NGV models. But, Honda is the only current manufacturer which sells a 
natural gas vehicle in America--the Honda Civic GX.
  Broadening the RFS will encourage more auto manufacturers to sell 
these vehicles domestically which will help our struggling auto 
manufacturing industry.
  The bill broadens the Alternative Vehicle Tax Credit to include bi-
fuel vehicles.
  Currently only ``dedicated'' vehicles or vehicles which solely run on 
natural gas qualify for this credit. This narrow definition actually 
discourages the sale of bi-fuel vehicles--those which can run on both 
conventional fuels and natural gas fuels.
  Americans need the flexibility to use conventional gasoline as a 
back-up if there are no natural gas refueling stations in a given area.
  By encouraging bi-fuel natural gas vehicles, less gasoline and diesel 
would be consumed. How?
  Today, the largest hurdle facing the NGV industry is the lack of 
natural gas refueling stations available to the public. However, a 
device is now manufactured and sold, called the Phill, which allows a 
person to fill up their natural gas powered cars at home.
  Installed in one's garage, the Phill is connected to a home's natural 
gas line.

[[Page 15455]]

 Once plugged into a CNG car, it slowly compresses natural gas into the 
car's tank.
  Similar to the idea of plug-in hybrids, the Phill allows consumers to 
refuel at home. Unlike plug-in hybrids, this technology is not a few 
years away--it is here today.
  By encouraging bi-fuel vehicles, more Americans will be comfortable 
purchasing natural gas powered cars which can also run on conventional 
gasoline for that occasional long distance trip from home.
  Expanding the Alternative Vehicle Tax Credit to include bi-fuels will 
greatly incentivize the use of NGV's and give consumers the flexibility 
they require.
  The bill establishes a Natural Gas Vehicle Research, Development, and 
Demonstration program.
  Several years ago, the Department of Energy had a robust Natural Gas 
Vehicle Research Development and Demonstration program. This bill once 
again establishes that program to research, improve and develop the use 
of natural gas engines and vehicles.
  The program will assist manufacturers in emissions certification, 
will develop and improve nationally recognized safety codes and 
standards, will examine and improve the reliability and efficiency of 
natural gas fueling station infrastructure, and will study the use of 
natural gas engines in hybrid vehicles.
  Additionally, it requires the Department of Energy and the EPA to 
coordinate with the private sector to carry out the program.
  The bill directs the EPA to establish a State demonstration program 
to streamline the regulations and certifications currently required for 
the conversion of vehicles to natural gas.
  Today's regulatory burdens are daunting for those in the business of 
converting vehicles to run on CNG or LNG. Currently, the EPA imposes 
virtually the same certification requirements on NGV aftermarket 
conversion systems as they require on automakers.
  Since NGV systems are inherently cleaner than gasoline systems, these 
regulations impose huge unnecessary costs on these conversion system 
makers.
  This bill directs EPA to establish a State demonstration program to 
streamline the current certification process for NGV conversions. It 
also directs EPA to waive unnecessary requirements for the continual 
recertification of conversion kits and to waive emission certification 
for conversion of older vehicles.
  Most importantly, the Drive America on Natural Gas Act doesn't 
dictate that consumers, businesses, or States must use natural gas as a 
transportation fuel.
  To the contrary, this bill actually adds more flexibility to the 
current RFS mandates.
  It removes the disincentives for auto manufacturers to produce bi-
fuel vehicles.
  It streamlines and eliminates the government bureaucracy and red tape 
on the conversion of vehicles to operate on natural gas.
  The Drive America on Natural Gas Act will allow natural gas to 
compete on its own merits. Americans can ultimately choose whether 
natural gas powered vehicles are right for their own individual and 
business needs.
  The promise of natural gas as a mainstream transportation fuel is 
achievable today, not 15 or 20 years from now.
  Currently, over 25 different manufacturers produce nearly 100 models 
of light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and engines for the U.S. 
market. However, only Honda sells a domestically available CNG car.
  Over 10,000 transit buses in the U.S. are natural gas powered and the 
market is growing; nearly one-in-five new transit buses on order is 
specified to be natural gas powered.
  There are over 7.5 million NGVs on the road worldwide--more than 
double the number in 2003. The International Association of NGVs 
forecasts that, by 2020, there will be 65 million NGVs worldwide.
  In April, the Department of Energy reported that the average 
nationwide price of a gallon of gas equivalent of CNG was just $2.04 
per gallon.
  In some regions of the country prices are even lower--CNG costs in 
Rocky Mountain states average just a $1.26 per gallon.
  Many state and local governments, businesses, and consumers have cut 
their fuel bills by more than half when utilizing natural gas as a 
transportation fuel.
  In my hometown of Tulsa, OK a person can refuel their CNG powered 
cars for just 90 cents per gallon. Regular gas currently costs $3.95. 
That's more than a $3 savings per gallon.
  Just last month I was pleased to visit Tom Sewall of Tulsa Natural 
Gas Technologies, Inc. As a small business owner who installs natural 
gas refueling stations, he is one of the most knowledgeable and vocal 
leaders in this growing industry.
  America has a huge natural gas supply base. In 13 of the last 14 
years, the amount of new natural gas discovered in the U.S. has 
exceeded the amount that has been extracted.
  Raymond James Equity Research recently reported a ``bearish outlook 
for U.S. natural gas prices.'' After examining the future supply of 
domestic production, they released a May 19, 2008 energy report which 
concluded ``we continue to see unprecedented growth in U.S. gas 
production that will eventually overwhelm the U.S. gas markets.''
  Thanks to advancements in oil and gas exploration, drilling, and 
production technologies, America is producing huge amounts of natural 
gas from tight shales, coalbed methane and tight gas plays, in areas 
such as: The Barnett Shale in North Central Texas; the Marcellus and 
Huron Shales, which run through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and 
New York; the Haynesville Shale in Northwest Louisiana; the 
Fayetteville Shale in central Arkansas; the Woodford Shale in southern 
Oklahoma; the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah field in Wyoming; and the 
San Juan Basin CoalBed Methane play in northern New Mexico.
  These and numerous other emerging gas plays promise to deliver 
decades of abundant domestic natural gas supply.
  From compressed natural gas--CNG--powered cars, to 18-wheelers 
running on liquefied natural gas--LNG--no other commercially viable 
fuel burns cleaner.
  The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy has rated the 
natural gas powered Honda Civic GX as ``America's Greenest Car'' for 
the past 5 consecutive years--even greener than any available hybrid.
  On a well-to-wheels basis, NGVs produce 22 percent less greenhouse 
gas than comparable diesel vehicles and 29 percent less than gasoline 
vehicles.
  In 2007, NGVs displaced 250 million gallons of petroleum in the U.S. 
In the next 17 years, the industry's goal is to grow that to 10 billion 
gallons.
  NGVs are the pathway to a hydrogen transportation system. Every NGV 
fueling station is a potential hydrogen fueling station. Every auto 
garage or maintenance facility that has been made NGV-compatible can 
quickly and cheaply be made hydrogen-compatible.
  The medium-germ solution to today's gas price crisis is to explore 
and produce oil from ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, the Rocky 
Mountain oil shales, and preserve our access to the Canadian oil sands. 
That is why my comprehensive bill includes opening all these areas for 
exploration, along with a program to increase our refining capacity.
  But, in the mean time the best way to bring down the price at the 
pump immediately is to pass this bill and run more cars on natural gas. 
Of course, the democrats have objected to increasing supplies of oil 
and gas for decades. They don't want more supply. There should be no 
objection from the democrats, and frankly I cannot think of any 
justification for opposing my Drive America on Natural Gas Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. LANDRIEU:
  S. 3285. A bill to ensure that, for each small business participating 
in the 8(a) business development program that was affected by Hurricane 
Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005, the period in which it can 
participate is extended by 24 months; to the Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship.

[[Page 15456]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on 
behalf of some of our most in need gulf coast residents. Everyone 
around the country is familiar with the impact of Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita on the New Orleans area and the southwest part of our State. 
Images from the devastation following these storms, and the subsequent 
Federal levee breaks, were transmitted around the country and around 
the world. This is because Katrina was the deadliest natural disaster 
in United States history, with 1,800 people killed--1,500 alone in 
Louisiana. Katrina was also the costliest natural disaster in United 
States history with over $81.2 billion in damage.
  Everyone is familiar with the images and the cost, but they may not 
be too familiar with the impact on individual businesses. In 
particular, I am speaking about the affects of Hurricanes Katrina and 
Rita on minority firms in the gulf coast. As a result of these storms, 
many minority firms in the gulf coast were disrupted and thus lost 
valuable time for participating in the 8(a) program. The 8(a) business 
development initiative, created under the Small Business 
Administration, helps minority entrepreneurs access Federal contracts 
and allows companies to be certified for increments of 3 years. These 
contracts are vital to the revival of these impacted areas. However, as 
currently structured the program allows businesses to participate for a 
limited length of time, 9 years, after which they can never reapply nor 
get back into the program. It is imperative that we provide contracting 
assistance to our local minority businesses.
  Today I am proud to sponsor legislation that will help these 
businesses recover from the effects of these storms. This bill, the 
Disadvantaged Business Disaster Eligibility Act would tackle this 
problem in three important ways. First, the bill extends 8(a) 
eligibility for program participants in Katrina/Rita-impacted areas in 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama by 24 months. Next, the bill would 
apply to any areas in the state of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama 
that have been designated by the Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration as a disaster area as a result of Hurricanes Katrina or 
Rita. Lastly, the bill would require the Administrator of the Small 
Business Administration to ensure that every small business 
participating in the 8(a) program before the date of enactment of the 
act is reviewed and brought into compliance with this Act. This 
requirement would ensure that any eligible previous 8(a) participants 
will be allowed back into the program. As such, these key provisions 
would ensure that these businesses continue to play a vital role in 
rebuilding their communities. I note that a similar bill has already 
passed the House of Representatives, with the strong support of the 
Louisiana House delegation. I would note though that my legislation 
differs from the House-passed bill in that my bill also covers 
businesses impacted by Hurricane Rita. While I support the House-passed 
bill, I feel that we must also cover businesses impacted by Hurricane 
Rita--particularly those in southwest Louisiana. For this and other 
reasons, I look forward to championing this bill here in the Senate.
  Although recovery has been slow, it is my belief that great progress 
brings great change. The Small Business Administration has come a long 
way in correcting its failed practices. Congress recently stepped up 
and enacted wide-ranging SBA disaster reforms as part of the Farm Bill. 
I note that many of these reforms, such as the increases in loan limits 
and collateral requirements, were immediately helpful to disaster 
victims in the Midwest. It is my sincere hope that we can keep up this 
momentum by also passing the Disadvantaged Business Disaster 
Eligibility Act. To these ends, I will work with my colleagues on the 
Senate Small Business Committee, including Senators Kerry and Snowe, 
respectively chair and ranking member of the committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3285

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Disadvantaged Business 
     Disaster Eligibility Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION TERM FOR VICTIMS OF 
                   HURRICANE KATRINA OR HURRICANE RITA.

       (a) Retroactivity.--If a small business concern (within the 
     meaning given that term in section 3 of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 632)), while participating in any program or 
     activity under the authority of paragraph (10) of section 
     7(j) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(j)), was 
     located in a parish or county described in subsection (b) of 
     this section and was affected by Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or 
     Hurricane Rita of 2005, the period during which that small 
     business concern is permitted continuing participation and 
     eligibility in that program or activity shall be extended for 
     24 months after the date such participation and eligibility 
     would otherwise terminate.
       (b) Parishes and Counties Covered.--Subsection (a) applies 
     to any parish in the State of Louisiana, or any county in the 
     State of Mississippi or in the State of Alabama, that has 
     been designated by the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration as a disaster area by reason of Hurricane 
     Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005 under disaster 
     declaration 10176, 10177, 10178, 10179, 10180, 10181, 10205, 
     or 10206.
       (c) Review and Compliance.--The Administrator of the Small 
     Business Administration shall ensure that the case of every 
     small business concern participating before the date of 
     enactment of this Act in a program or activity covered by 
     subsection (a) is reviewed and brought into compliance with 
     this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 3287. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to establish a 
national usury rate for consumer credit transactions; to the Committee 
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Protecting 
Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act. The bill establishes a 
Federal usury cap of 36 percent on all consumer credit transactions, in 
an effort to eliminate the unconscionable interest rates that some 
consumers have been charged for payday loans, car title loans, and 
other forms of credit.
  The bill protects all borrowers by establishing the same annual 
percentage rate cap already in place for military personnel and their 
families. That rate is similar to the usury caps already enacted in 
many states.
  Specifically, the bill establishes a maximum interest rate of 36 
percent on all consumer credit transactions, taking into account all 
interest, fees, defaults, and other finance charges.
  The bill clarifies that this cap does not preempt any stricter State 
laws.
  It applies civil penalties for violations, including nullification of 
the transaction, fines, and prison.
  It empowers attorneys general to take action for up to three years 
after a violation.
  Previous attempts to curb payday lending have often been evaded due 
to the challenges of defining what constitutes a predatory loan. This 
bill overcomes this challenge by setting a relatively high interest 
rate as the cap, and then applying that cap to all credit transactions 
of any kind.
  With the economy in decline and consumer debt skyrocketing, it is 
vitally important that strong protections against predatory lending be 
enacted to protect consumers against unscrupulous lenders. The 
financial security of many working families depends on it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3287

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Consumers from 
     Unreasonable Credit Rates Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE.

       Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1631 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 140. MAXIMUM RATES OF INTEREST.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no creditor may make

[[Page 15457]]

     an extension of credit to a consumer with respect to which 
     the annual percentage credit rate, as defined in subsection 
     (b), exceeds 36 percent.
       ``(b) Annual Percentage Credit Rate Defined.--For purposes 
     of this section, the annual percentage credit rate includes 
     all charges payable directly or indirectly incident to, 
     ancillary to, or as a condition of the extension of credit, 
     including--
       ``(1) any payment compensating a creditor or prospective 
     creditor for an extension of credit or making available a 
     line of credit, or any default or breach by a borrower of a 
     condition upon which credit was extended, including fees 
     connected with credit extension or availability, such as 
     numerical periodic rates, late fees, excessive creditor-
     imposed not sufficient funds fees charged when a borrower 
     tenders payment on a debt with a check drawn on insufficient 
     funds, over limit fees, annual fees, cash advance fees, and 
     membership fees;
       ``(2) all fees which constitute a finance charge, as 
     defined by rules of the Board in accordance with this title;
       ``(3) credit insurance premiums, whether optional or 
     required; and
       ``(4) all charges and costs for ancillary products sold in 
     connection with or incidental to the credit transaction.
       ``(c) Relation to State Law.--Nothing in this section may 
     be construed to preempt any provision of State law that 
     provides greater protection to consumers than is provided in 
     this section.
       ``(d) Civil Liability and Enforcement.--In addition to 
     remedies available to the consumer under section 130(a), any 
     payment compensating a creditor or prospective creditor, to 
     the extent that such payment is a transaction made in 
     violation of this section, shall be null and void, and not 
     enforceable by any party in any court or alternative dispute 
     resolution forum, and the creditor or any subsequent holder 
     shall promptly return to the consumer any principal, 
     interest, charges, and fees, and any security interest 
     associated with such transaction. Notwithstanding any statute 
     of limitations or repose, a violation of this section may be 
     raised as a matter of defense by recoupment or set off to an 
     action to collect such debt or repossess related security at 
     any time.
       ``(e) Violations.--Any person that violates this section, 
     or seeks to enforce an agreement made in violation of this 
     section, shall be subject to, for each such violation, 1 year 
     in prison and a fine in an amount equal to the greater of--
       ``(1) 3 times the amount of the total accrued debt 
     associated with the subject transaction; or
       ``(2) $50,000.
       ``(f) State Attorneys General.--An action to enforce this 
     section may be brought by the appropriate State attorney 
     general in any United States district court or any other 
     court of competent jurisdiction within 3 years from the date 
     of the violation, and may obtain injunctive relief.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Domenici, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Dole, 
        Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Smith, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Brown, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mr. Casey, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Obama, Mr. 
        Kohl, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Biden, Mr. Levin, 
        Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Klobuchar, 
        and Mr. Tester):
  S.J. Res. 44. A joint resolution providing for congressional 
disapproval under chapter 8 of ``title 5, United States Code, of the 
rule set forth as requirements contained in the August 17, 2007, letter 
to State Health Officials from the Director of the Center for Medicaid 
and State Operations in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 
and the State Health Official Letter 08-003, dated May 7, 2008, from 
such Center; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I rise in solidarity with the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, as well as Senator Snowe, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Menendez, and many others, to wit, 41 other people 
who are cosponsores, and to introduce a resolution of disapproval, that 
is the name on it, of the August 17 CHIP directive.
  The directive jeopardizes health care coverage for hundreds of 
thousands of children, which is reason enough to nullify the August 17 
directive. But it also undermines the authority and the prerogatives of 
the legislative branch of Government.
  I would caution those who would otherwise vote against this to think 
about the precedence for the future and the next administration. We 
have not been treated well. It is not necessary that we will be treated 
well or with proper respect in the next administration. We need to 
exert our privileges where they are legitimate. It is further evidence 
of this administration's, in my regard, this Senator's regard, blatant 
disregard for the rule of law.
  As many of my colleagues may remember, on August 17, 2007, I referred 
to it as a domestic health care day of infamy, the Center for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, otherwise known as CMS, issued a ``guidance 
letter'' to the States, ostensibly to clarify existing policies and 
requirements for States seeking to expand the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, otherwise known as CHIP, coverage to more children, 
which is what we are meant to be doing here.
  However, the practical effect of the letter will be to drastically 
increase the number of uninsured children, children who should 
rightfully be covered by CHIP and who otherwise could benefit from the 
program. The directive has already taken a substantial toll on State 
coverage initiatives for uninsured children. Since it was issued, the 
directive has caused a diverse array of States, including Indiana, 
Louisiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma, that had planned to provide affordable 
coverage options for uninsured children through CHIP or Medicaid, in 
fact, to delay or scale back, or State fund their initiatives, if they 
can afford to so do.
  As a result, tens of thousands of children have already missed out on 
coverage. By August, the directive will affect at least 22 States, 
including my own State of West Virginia. Hundreds of thousands of 
children, in red and blue States alike, will lose coverage immediately, 
if this directive goes into effect.
  The directive goes directly against the will of the Congress. It was 
an act by a Cabinet officer or one of his minions, and it is not legal.
  In addition to harming innocent children, the August 17 directive 
also undermines congressional authority. I am very sensitive about that 
after these last 7\1/2\ years. In 1996, Congress passed what is called 
the Congressional Review Act, to protect the integrity of the 
legislative branch from the whims of Federal agencies or midlevel 
bureaucrats or upper level bureaucrats. The Congressional Review Act 
requires Federal agencies--requires Federal agencies--to submit any 
rules covered by the act to Congress and the Comptroller General of the 
United States before that rule can take affect. Both the Congressional 
Research Service and the Government Accountability Office have 
determined that the August 17 CHIP directive constitutes a rule--a 
rule--as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
  Therefore, CMS has to submit the August 17 rule to each House of 
Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect. We are 
exactly 1 month from implementation of this harmful policy, and CMS has 
repeatedly failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the 
Congressional Review Act.
  It is an outrage. It is embarrassing. It is pathetic policy, damaging 
policy to innocent children who do not start wars and only need to 
start off in life healthy. If CMS is so convinced that the policy is 
justifiable, then they should take the required steps suggested by the 
GAO and the CRS in their review and abide by the law.
  Not all my colleagues may agree with me on the substance of this 
issue. Some may believe that the August 17 policy CMS put forth in this 
guidance letter is perfectly acceptable. That is fine. That is up to 
them. On that we disagree.
  But we should all be able to agree--in fact, we have no choice but to 
agree, all of us--that CMS violated the proper process required by law. 
They did not submit to the proper agencies or to the Congress what they 
intended to do surreptitiously and devastatingly.
  If you respect Congress, as an institution, which I know all my 
colleagues

[[Page 15458]]

do, then I urge you to support this formal resolution of disapproval. 
The health care coverage of millions of children depends on what we do 
on this.
  This is not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This is a motion of 
disapproval and it will cause things to happen or to be ignored and it 
will have consequences. But we can reverse the August 17 decision and 
allow children to get health insurance as the Congress intended if we 
simply vote for this at the proper time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank you, and I commend the Senator 
from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, for his leadership in this matter.
  I rise in strong support of the resolution that was introduced by 
myself, Senators Rockefeller, Baucus, Menendez, Snowe, and others. Our 
resolution has a simple message: We have to ensure that children across 
this country continue to get the health care they presently carry.
  The Bush administration is conducting an assault on their health 
insurance. It is pitiful. Last year, the President and his supporters 
went around Congress and issued a set of rules that would take this 
critical health care coverage away from thousands of children across 
this country.
  In my State of New Jersey alone, 10,000 children are at risk of 
losing their health insurance under this new Bush plan. Across this 
country, 250,000 children will be stripped of their health care, have 
it taken away from them.
  In August, with nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance, 
this administration has made a further decision to add tens of 
thousands more children to the ranks of the uninsured. It is almost 
impossible to conceive.
  Well, this resolution would put a stop to the dangerous plan. The 
Bush administration's plan is not just morally bankrupt, it is, as we 
heard from Senator Rockefeller, according to the Government's watchdog 
agency, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, a violation of 
Federal law. They are committing a violation of Federal law.
  But, nevertheless, unless Congress acts, the President's plan is 
going to remove health insurance from these children in the next month. 
I have twice offered amendments in the Senate Appropriations Committee 
on this issue. Both times in the full committee, both Democrats and 
Republicans have gone on record to oppose President Bush's attempt to 
take away children's health care.
  It does not matter whether it is Republican or Democratic, it is the 
wrong thing to do at the wrong time in our society, when things are so 
uncertain for people, home ownership, jobs, living costs, gasoline 
costs. This is not a very wise decision at any time, but during these 
tough economic times, the last thing we should do is take away health 
insurance from our children.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up to this sustained and shameless 
effort to prevent children from seeing a doctor, getting medicine, 
overcoming sickness, and to support this resolution.
  Once again, I express my gratitude to the Senator from West Virginia, 
Mr. Rockefeller, and his leadership and those who have joined in to 
say: No, Mr. President, do not do this. It is unkind. It is unfair. It 
is illegal, according to the rules. Please, do not do it.
  I ask my colleagues to stand and support our resolution.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I note a number of my colleagues are 
on the floor to speak in favor of the resolution. I ask unanimous 
consent that the full text of the resolution be printed in the Record 
immediately following all these statements on the resolution.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint-resolution was 
ordered to be placed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 44

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services relating to requirements set forth in the 
     State Health Official Letter 07-001, dated August 17, 2007, 
     issued by the Director of the Center for Medicaid and State 
     Operations in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 
     and the State Health Official Letter 08-003, dated May 7, 
     2008, from such Center, requiring States that expand the 
     income eligibility level for children under the State 
     Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) above 250 percent 
     of the Federal poverty level to adopt the 5 crowd-out 
     strategies described in the August 17, 2007, letter with the 
     components identified therein, and to provide certain 
     assurances described in such letter, and such rule shall have 
     no force or effect.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. I wish to join my distinguished colleague from West 
Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, who has been a champion on this issue 
from its creation and continues to be a champion to preserve the health 
care for some of the most vulnerable children in our society.
  I appreciate his leadership, and I am privileged to join with him in 
this effort along with Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee; my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, 
who has tried time and time again through the appropriations process; 
Senator Snowe, who has been a champion on this issue as well. We 
understand the consequences.
  Eleven months ago today, the Bush administration decided to 
jeopardize health coverage for hundreds of thousands of children across 
the country. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sent a 
letter to all State health officials announcing that 1 month from 
today, States will be pressured to cover a much narrower range of 
families. They based their directive on an unfair financial standard 
that would exclude hundreds of thousands of children in the most 
difficult economic circumstances of our time. The result of that 
directive would be unconscionable. It would mean hundreds of thousands 
of terrible stories--a child with diabetes that goes undiagnosed, a 
child with a cleft palate she has to live with for the rest of her 
life, missed tetanus shots, untreated allergies, asthma, and hundreds 
of thousands of small, painful situations that would add up to a wave 
of tragedy too immense to imagine.
  Many of us in this Chamber decided we were not going to sit back and 
watch this happen. We sent letters. We introduced legislation. We 
shouted as loudly as we could. But the President did his best to ignore 
us and keep his back turned on these children.
  In 1 month, this unbelievably harmful rule is set to come into 
effect. In 1 month, States will have to overcome seemingly 
insurmountable hurdles if they want to cover children above 250 percent 
of the poverty level. In 1 month, the strength of our values will be 
seriously called into question.
  If it weren't for this program, these children would fall between the 
cracks. They are not in dire enough poverty to qualify for Medicaid, 
but their working parents still don't have enough to afford private 
coverage. The families we seek to cover work hard every day, in some of 
the toughest jobs, but they work at jobs that offer no health care. 
These families certainly don't make enough money to afford private 
coverage. The State Children's Health Insurance Program is their last 
resort. That is why I am still shocked at the nerve of this 
administration when they unilaterally issued this harmful, coldhearted 
directive on children's health. Where are those values I have heard the 
administration talk about? This really boils down to a different set of 
priorities. It is yet another example of placing some of the wealthiest 
above our working families.
  If the President's directive takes effect, he is effectively saying 
tough luck to these families; go ahead and roll the dice with your 
daughter's health care. Let's think about what that says about our 
values. That kind of sentiment is completely out of line.
  But that is not the only reason this directive should be overturned. 
The directive is not just a violation of our values, it is a violation 
of the law. The administration bypassed Congress and violated the 
Congressional Review Act when issuing this directive. The Government 
Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service have 
issued legal opinions stating as much.

[[Page 15459]]

The opinions conclude that the directive is not merely a clarification 
of existing SCHIP rules, as CMS has maintained, but, rather, a marked 
departure from well-settled policy that first should have been reviewed 
by Congress. That is why we are introducing this resolution of 
disapproval regarding the August 17 CHIP directive.
  The President cannot be allowed to get away with this destructive 
backdoor policy. If we can't convince him on moral grounds, if we can't 
make him see the benefits of providing health care to children--and by 
the way, in New Jersey we have letters from the administration that not 
only gave us the authority to do this in the first place, to cover 
these children, but then also lauded our program and said it should be 
a model for the country; if it is a model for the country and you gave 
us the legal authority, how can you just take all those children off 
the rolls--then we call him out on procedural grounds. And the 
administration's procedure was, quite simply, illegal.
  When this resolution passes into law, the August 17 directive will be 
nullified. That is my ultimate goal, to protect the health of our 
Nation's children and, certainly, the many children in New Jersey 
affected by this directive. The goal we strive for should be to cover 
more, not fewer, children. I believe we have a responsibility, a moral, 
financial, and professional responsibility to ensure that in the 
greatest country in the world, no child goes to bed at night without 
proper health care and treatment. That means we must provide them with 
health coverage. If we don't, what are these families supposed to do? 
In these tough economic times, now more than ever, we need to support 
States that offer options for affordable coverage to hard-working 
parents and their children.
  It is not just the health of our Nation's children but the health of 
our values that is at stake. I hope our colleagues, when this 
resolution comes up for a vote, will give it an overwhelming level of 
support, and we will send the right set of messages as to our values as 
well as how much we appreciate our children as the future of our 
country and the health that is associated with them that will be 
necessary for them to achieve their God-given potential.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today, Senator Rockefeller and I, along 
with many of our colleagues, are introducing a joint resolution 
disapproving of an administrative rule related to the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP. I urge my colleagues to 
support the joint resolution.
  I spent a lot of time talking about CHIP last year. We tried to 
expand and improve the program, so that it could help millions more 
kids across America. I remain disappointed that the President vetoed 
both of the reauthorization packages that Congress sent him. But I also 
remain committed to fighting for CHIP and the families whom it serves.
  That is why I am here today. Last summer, while House and Senate 
Democrats and Republicans were crafting reauthorization legislation, 
the administration issued what is known as the August 17th CHIP 
directive. The directive imposes significant new requirements on States 
wishing to expand eligibility for CHIP to kids from families with 
incomes above 250 percent of the Federal poverty line.
  The directive was viewed as overly restrictive and severe. It imposes 
unrealistic hurdles on States wishing to cover more kids under CHIP. 
The timing of the directive's release was seen as unfair, given that 
work on reauthorization was well underway. The process surrounding 
issuance of the directive also caused concern. Congressional reaction 
to the directive was so negative that we included in the CHIP 
reauthorization legislation a more reasonable alternative policy that 
would have supplanted the directive.
  The administration issued the directive in the form of a letter to 
State health officials. While the administration has the authority to 
use sub-regulatory letters for some things, it exceeded its authority 
on August 17, 2007. The CHIP directive letter was actually a rule. And 
the administration should have promulgated it as a rule. Both the 
Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service 
determined that the directive is a rule.
  That the directive is a rule is significant, because of the 
Congressional Review Act. Congress passed the Congressional Review Act 
to protect and empower Congress. Congress meant for the law to keep 
Congress informed of the administrative rulemaking process. Congress 
meant for the law to provide an opportunity for Congress to review 
rules before they take effect.
  The Congressional Review Act requires an agency, prior to publishing 
a rule, to submit a copy of the rule to both Houses of Congress and to 
the Comptroller General. In this instance, the agency did not submit 
its rule to either House of Congress or to the Comptroller General. So 
Congress was deprived of its opportunity for review.
  This was a violation of fair process. We should not tolerate it. 
Members of Congress should stand up for themselves and the institution 
by supporting this joint resolution. The Congressional Review Act 
imposes specific obligations on agencies and vests Congress with 
certain powers.
  On August 17, 2007, one agency attempted to ignore its obligations 
and Congress. The agency attempted to circumvent the process 
established by the Congressional Review Act. And the agency should not 
be rewarded.
  Congress should disapprove of this rule because the substance is so 
over-reaching and detrimental to America's kids. And Congress should 
also disapprove of this rule because it was issued in a way that was 
inconsistent with the law.
  This resolution is a way to tell low-income American families that 
they matter. This resolution is a way to say that Congress is willing 
to fight for them.
  I know that my home State of Montana is trying to expand its 
eligibility for CHIP. I support that effort. For me, this joint 
resolution is another way to show how important CHIP is to Montana's 
kids.
  The resolution is also a way for Congress to send the message that it 
expects agencies to comply with the law. Congress should stand up for 
itself and disapprove of this rule, because it was, not promulgated 
properly.
  I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a joint 
resolution of which I am a cosponsor, the joint resolution disapproving 
the rule requirements in the CMS letter that was sent in August of 
2007, sent on a Friday during recess. It earned the nickname ``the 
midnight massacre'' because of the nature of the way that was sent. But 
I think a better way to describe this, in terms of the impact it has on 
children, is a ``thief in the night.''
  What we are talking about is an effort by a Federal agency to deny 
health coverage for children under the guise of some bureaucratic 
inside-the-beltway rationale. What this directive does is set unfairly 
high bars for States, which the Federal Government knows they cannot 
reach, and is purposefully, I think, denying children health care. It 
also sets a waiting period for children and their families in States. 
At the same time, when the Federal Government makes all kinds of 
accommodations for the powerful, they let children and their families 
wait for health care coverage.
  This directive bypassed Congress and violated the law. It excluded 
States, and it is not any kind of clarification, as the administration 
has asserted. Hundreds of thousands of children will lose their health 
insurance coverage. Several States have already been affected. In my 
home State of Pennsylvania at least--if not more--2,000 children will 
lose their health insurance coverage. It also undercuts an agreement in 
Congress to do something about this and to keep this Children's Health 
Insurance Program in place until March of 2009.
  This is very simple. We are talking about children who are poor, who 
come from poor families or middle-income families. Children's health 
insurance is a program that works. We have had a decade of 
experimentation. It works very well. It is efficient. It is effective. 
It delivers health insurance for children, and there are a lot of 
families out

[[Page 15460]]

there, a lot of mothers out there, who can do everything for their 
children; they can provide nurture and care and safety. One thing a 
mother cannot provide for her child is health care, unless she gets 
some help, just a little bit of help from the Federal Government, with 
all the power.
  So I would say to the administration, turn back against this 
bureaucratic, inside baseball, ``thief in the night'' and make sure 
these children get the coverage they deserve, just like the rest of us 
in Congress. We get pretty good health care coverage. It is about time 
more people in the Senate, in the House, and down the street in the 
administration stood up for children and did away with this directive.

                          ____________________