[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 23514-23515]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         CONTINUING RESOLUTION

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I want to make a few observations about the 
continuing resolution and the appropriations process this year.
  First, I want to commend Chairman Inouye for his leadership and 
efforts to accommodate the views and input of all senators in crafting 
the omnibus appropriations bill. He went a long way to meet the demands 
of the minority leader and other senators to include a $29 billion cut 
from the budget level requested by the President. Indeed, I was deeply 
disappointed that the proposed omnibus would have eliminated the 
Leveraging Educational Assistance Program, LEAP. For more than a 
decade, I worked with states, educators, and others to reauthorize and 
fund this program, which uses Federal resources to leverage additional 
state aid to help low income students attend college. As much as I was 
dissatisfied by this outcome, I was prepared to vote for this bill 
because it is far superior to the inefficiencies and consequences of a 
continuing resolution. I am disappointed that such a significant 
compromise was blocked by the other side of the aisle.
  Instead, we are being forced to adopt a short-term continuing 
resolution, CR, through March 4, 2011. With few exceptions, the CR 
provides no direction from Congress on how funds can be used, while at 
the same time failing to make critical adjustments and investments for 
certain programs and agencies. Critics of the omnibus appropriations 
bill should understand that unlike the thoughtful, lengthy, and open 
appropriations process that produced the omnibus, this CR was put 
together quickly without the input of most senators. As a result, it is 
hardly a thoughtful instrument for funding the government.
  I am particularly concerned about the impact the CR will have on the 
capabilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission to provide 
robust oversight of financial markets.
  Fair and orderly markets are critical to restoring confidence in the 
American economy. Despite considerable increases in the number of firms 
it is required to oversee and tremendous

[[Page 23515]]

growth in the size and complexity of the securities markets and 
products it regulates, the SEC's workforce and technology investments 
are only now returning to the levels of five years ago.
  Under the CR, the SEC will be funded at the fiscal year 2010 rate, 
which is nearly $200 million less than what was included during 
bipartisan negotiations on the omnibus. Without the omnibus's funding 
level, the SEC will have to halt several technology projects and forgo 
replacement of departing staff. Shortchanging the SEC will also make it 
extraordinarily difficult to fulfill new statutory requirements under 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The SEC 
has been tasked with helping establish an effective regulatory system 
for the previously unseen and largely unregulated over-the-counter 
derivatives market and the hedge fund markets. It has new 
responsibilities over credit rating agencies, including annual exams.
  We should not make the past mistake of underfunding the SEC. This 
agency is critical to restoring the confidence of retirees and 
investors in the United States capital markets, so that they will again 
invest in American companies, helping inject new life into our economy. 
We should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Continuing to starve the 
SEC of the funds it needs to police markets will ultimately make it 
more likely to see a major fraud. Any incremental savings will be cold 
comfort for the losses incurred by taxpayers and investors.
  Likewise, I believe we need to fully fund the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission. At a hearing that Senator Levin and I held on 
December 8, 2010, Chairman Gensler informed us that his agency is going 
to be woefully short of resources. The continuing resolution for the 
CFTC will leave them about $116 million short of the funding level 
included in the omnibus.
  I hope that we will have chance to address these critical shortfalls 
in the next funding vehicle to come before the Senate.
  While it is true that overall the 36-page CR did not provide 
sufficient direction and oversight, it is important to acknowledge that 
the CR does make a few adjustments--some that are essential and others 
which I believe deserved greater consideration.
  I want to applaud the addition of language in the CR that requires 
the Department of Health and Human Services to obligate the same amount 
of funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program as it did 
during the same period last year. This will make a total of $3.95 
billion available to low-income families and individuals during the 
cold winter months. I hope that in the final appropriations bill we 
will meet the bipartisan request of 44 Senators to fully fund this 
program at the $5.1 billion level for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.
  I am also pleased that the CR addresses funding for the Pell grant. 
According to recent estimates from the Office of Management and Budget, 
students would have faced a reduction of as much as $1,840 from the 
maximum grant. The CR will address the shortfall and ensure that we can 
maintain the Pell grant maximum at $5,550. Despite the economic 
hardships families are facing, they continue to prioritize education. 
They know that it is the foundation for our economic recovery and 
future prosperity. We must keep our end of the bargain by maintaining 
our commitment to the Pell grant.
  I am, however, concerned that the CR includes a provision to codify a 
misguided Bush-era regulation that undermines our central goal of 
ensuring that students in high poverty schools are taught by highly 
qualified teachers and that parents know the qualifications of their 
children's teachers. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 
2002, a highly qualified teacher must have obtained full state 
certification, which may include certification obtained through 
alternative routes. The Bush administration published regulations 
allowing that a teacher who is merely enrolled in or making progress 
toward state certification to be deemed highly qualified. Parents in 
California have challenged the regulation in the courts and have won a 
favorable decision on appeal. Quite simply, they want to know whether 
their children's teachers are fully certified or just in the process of 
becoming certified. This provision prevents them from knowing that.
  I am also deeply disappointed that this CR does not contain important 
language that would have allowed the Department of Defense to reprogram 
funds for new starts, increases in production, or other realignments. 
This provision would have given the Department further flexibility to 
ensure critical defense programs stay on schedule and on cost. This is 
especially important for the Navy's ship construction programs--
programs that the Navy supports, were authorized by the Defense 
Authorization Act, and employ thousands of Rhode Islanders.
  Without this provision, the Navy, and all of the services, will be 
further limited and constrained to execute programs within the funding 
levels set last year.
  I have described some of the pitfalls with this CR. It is a crude 
instrument that has many shortcomings. Regrettably, the decision by our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to walk away from the omnibus 
placed the continued operation of government agencies from the Pentagon 
to the FBI to the FDA to the Treasury at risk. Adopting the CR, 
notwithstanding its significant flaws, is the only responsible option 
available. In the coming months, it is my hope that we can craft a full 
year funding measure that corrects the serious issues the CR has 
created and failed to address.

                          ____________________