[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9019-9051]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3305

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to talk about the oilspill in 
the gulf and the continuing challenges it presents to us. I know some 
of my colleagues are going to be joining me in a few moments to talk 
about this. I will ask consent for a colloquy. But I am going to make a 
few comments about it and then, in recognition of Senator Inhofe's need 
to move to another commitment, I will ask unanimous consent at that 
time.
  I want to make absolutely certain that big oil polluters pay for 
oilspills and not the taxpayers--not small business owners, not States 
or the Federal Government, which means the Federal taxpayers.
  We have seen things get worse on the spill over the weekend. 
Unfortunately, things are, frankly, getting much worse than we would 
have imagined when we first introduced this legislation. Today the 
United States declared a fishing disaster in three gulf States--in 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Louisiana's fishing industry alone 
is $2.4 billion of seafood and supplies up to 40 percent of all the 
U.S. seafood in our country. It is, in my mind, a growing and 
continuing environmental and economic disaster.
  Tragically, it seems to me, a $10 billion cap--we originally thought, 
based upon the Exxon Valdez experience, where there were close to $4 
billion in claims 20 years ago, that was a cap that may have been an 
appropriate one. But in fact it seems to me the only way to ensure that 
oil companies are held accountable for all of their potential damages, 
for the proposition that a polluter pays at the end of the day, is to 
agree with the administration's statement and to raise from a cap of 
$75 million to an unlimited cap. I will be asking that in my unanimous 
consent motion in a few minutes.
  We heard already the objections to our legislation. We have even 
heard some claim that it is ``un-American'' to hold a multibillion 
dollar corporation accountable for the very disaster it caused. It 
boggles my mind, at least as one Senator, that there are those who 
believe that holding BP accountable for the disaster they created in 
the gulf is un-American.
  This is a chance to show if we stand with big oil companies or with 
small businesses, with fisheries, with coastal communities, with 
tourism, with hotels--with all of those individuals, fellow Americans 
who are being hurt by this disaster. It is an opportunity to say do we 
stand with the American taxpayer or with corporate shareholders.
  It seems to me the choice is pretty clear. Miles of coastline have 
already been affected. Environmentally sensitive wetlands are 
increasingly being under threat. We have seen that, despite the fact 
that the rig was ``state of the art,'' it obviously was not too safe to 
fail.
  Now the damage to the environment, to the economy of the gulf, to the 
fishermen, to the small businesses, to the Nation is mounting. I hope 
my colleagues are ready to act, especially when we have the statements 
of BP, that have been reiterated, that they are going to subject 
themselves--even though there is a legal cap of $75 million--not for 
the cleanup, not for all the efforts that are underway--yes, that 
clearly is their responsibility--but a legal cap of $75 million for all 
of the liability, for all of those coastal communities and fishermen 
and seafood fishermen, shrimp fishermen, and commercial seafood 
processing plants, tourism, and a whole host of other elements that may 
be affected, that they be limited to $75 million--less than 1 day of 
BP's profit. BP was making at the rate of $94 million a day. Seventy-
five million dollars would be less than 1 day of BP's profits.

[[Page 9020]]

  If they say they are going to be responsible--and any companies 
similarly situated should be fully responsible, accountable and subject 
to that liability--what is the objection to raising the cap?
  I hope everyone in the Chamber will do the right thing to hold big 
oil accountable for the damages they caused. Damages are mounting. They 
still have not stopped the leak. While BP says they will pay all 
``legitimate claims,'' their word is not legally binding. As a matter 
of fact, when they were before the Energy Committee, colleagues of mine 
asked them, clearly, questions and they began to equivocate as to what 
is a legitimate claim.
  Today I asked the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, 
who was before the Energy Committee, is there a consent agreement 
between the government and BP, that holds them--legally binding--to the 
proposition that they will be subject to all the liabilities they have 
caused? And the answer was no. There is some letter, but even that 
letter is rather amorphous.
  When I hear they are equivocating before the committee, and when I 
see the experience we already had with Exxon--that made all similar 
types of statements and then litigated for 20 years--it seems to me 
this clearly raises concerns that they will try to find a convenient 
loophole, a convenient way out once the public relations nightmare is 
over, a way to say no, as many of my colleagues seem to want to say no 
and stand on the side of big oil companies and stand in the way of 
legislation that would raise the liability caps to ensure that big oil 
polluters pay for the damage they caused.
  I see, by example, one company, BP, made nearly $6 billion in 
profits--not proceeds, profits--in 3 months of this year; when the top 
5 oil companies made nearly $25 billion in profits--not proceeds, 
profits--in 3 months, and that somehow we are worried about them even 
when they caused the type of potentially enormous consequences that BP 
has actually caused in this case, and we are not worried about those 
communities, our taxpayers, and our fragile ecosystem. It is a failure 
that now threatens the entire gulf coast. It could go all the way to 
the Florida Keys.
  I appreciate the administration earlier today embraced the idea of 
unlimited liability. I commend them for that. I want to make sure BP 
ends up committing to pay for this disaster, not by their words but by 
a legal obligation to do so, and that is what we can create today. 
There should be no legal wiggle room for oil companies that devastate 
coastal businesses and communities now or in the future.
  In view of that goal, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged of S. 3305, the 
Big Oil Bailout Prevention Unlimited Liability Act of 2010, that the 
Senate proceed to its consideration, that the only amendment in order 
be the substitute amendment that is at the desk, that the substitute 
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, first let me say I agree 
with most of what the Senator from New Jersey is saying. He mentioned 
the profits of the top five oil companies--Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, 
ExxonMobil, and Chevron. They are the giants.
  If we will recall, last week when I objected to the arbitrary figure, 
the cap of $10 billion, it was because it was arbitrary. I quoted a lot 
of people in the administration saying we do not want to have--it 
should not be an arbitrary cap. One of the complaints I had was, if you 
do have an arbitrary cap and that was at $10 billion, that would mean 
only the big five plus the national oil companies--Venezuela, China, 
certainly--would be in a position to do this work offshore.
  It is my feeling if you take the $10 billion off and make it totally 
unlimited, that could very well shut out even the five and leave 
nothing but national oil companies in a position to be doing it.
  I believe we should increase the cap. I know there is unanimity in 
that notion. We have to do it. The Secretary of Interior said this 
about the $10 billion cap:

       [I]t is important that we be thoughtful relative to that, 
     what that cap will be, because you don't want only the BP's 
     of the world essentially to be the ones that are involved in 
     these efforts.

  I agree with 90 percent of what the Senator says, and with the 
Secretary of Interior, what he has said about this--that we need to 
determine how high that cap should be. It should be much higher. We 
have plenty of time to do that. Let me emphasize there is no cap in 
terms of the cleanup damages. We are only talking about economic 
damages here. There is no cap on cleanup damages. I think there should 
be. At some point we have to arrive at a cap. A lot of people are 
working on it. The administration is working on it, the Department of 
Interior is working on it, and we are working on it. I think we need to 
increase that. For that reason we need to have the time to get that 
done, and I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. INHOFE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, first, I am disappointed because I 
appreciate what the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma said, but the 
reality is, the administration has been thoughtful. They have thought 
about it. Today they announced, as well as was verified by the 
Assistant Attorney General at a hearing, that it is their view that in 
fact there should be an unlimited cap. So they have not equivocated 
about an amount. They have now said it should be an unlimited cap; 
unlimited, just as BP has suggested that they are going to accept 
unlimited responsibility for the liability they have created as a 
result of the spill in the gulf.
  I have difficulties understanding, when we begin to talk about 
sizes--that if you are smaller but conduct yourself with the same 
potential risky consequences that end up polluting the gulf or anyplace 
else as it is being polluted right now--that simply because you are 
smaller but you take the same risks that you should have less 
liability, which means that then all of us as taxpayers--and I know a 
lot of people here do not want to see the Federal Government more 
involved. They want to see the Federal Government less involved until 
they need the Federal Government and then they come clamoring to this 
Chamber for money.
  It seems to me if these companies--and the Senator only mentioned the 
top five, but there are more that have good profits, but certainly the 
top five. If they made $25 billion in 3 months, why in God's name 
should I give them any of the taxpayers' money when they mess up, when 
they pollute?
  What Representative of what State is going to come here and say give 
us money because, by the way, we were harmed in this way or that way or 
the other when in fact they are unwilling to hold the oil companies 
responsible--with record profits? It is not acceptable.
  If we say if you are not one of the big 5 but we are worried about 
the next 10--they may be smaller but some of these entities that get 
referred to as independents--you know, there is one that actually owns 
a 25-percent stake in the well that is spilling in the gulf. They are 
valued at $40 billion. I don't think for the average American that is a 
mom-or-pop.
  The reality is, regardless of the size, the fundamental public policy 
question, if you take an activity that is risky, shouldn't you be 
responsible for the consequences of your risky activity or do we shift 
the responsibility to the general public and the taxpayer?
  It is like what we just went through in the Wall Street debate. So 
when they hit it big on the oil well and everything goes well, they 
keep the money. But when something goes wrong, the rest of us pay for 
the consequences. I do not think the American

[[Page 9021]]

taxpayers want to see that. That is not what they have in mind as being 
responsive to their interests.
  So I know my colleague from New Jersey wanted to enter into a 
colloquy with me. I would be happy to yield to him now.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend and colleague from New Jersey. When 
we hear the objection, as we have heard it, we have now three times 
offered legislation to lift the $75 million liability cap for oil 
companies, and I have to shake my head as I hear what is being said. 
The land that is drilled on is Federal land. It is land that everybody 
owns. It is our land. It is not their land. If you come into my yard 
and destroy my house, you pay for it because it is not the person who 
did the damage who owns it.
  It is shocking when I hear things such as ``arbitrary test''--
arbitrary. Whatever damage is caused ought to be paid for, very simply. 
So we on this side, our side of the aisle, are united that we need to 
do away with this cap. The liability is extensive. It ought to be paid 
for, especially by people who can afford to pay.
  When you think about it, these companies have to be reminded they are 
not selling lawnmowers; they are extracting oil from our property. They 
are making billions and billions of dollars on it, almost shamefully. I 
look at it and I remember that one time there was an excess profits tax 
in America. It was during World War II. It said companies that profited 
as a result of the war, as a result of the crisis, had to pay an extra 
tax on the profits they made. That is what we ought to be doing now. 
These profits they make and the damage they create are an 
unconscionable twosome.
  So those on the other side object each time we try to do something 
that enables our country, the people, to recover the damage that was 
put upon them by either careless or reckless behavior by three 
companies united: BP, Transocean, Halliburton.
  So there is no doubt about it. Shamelessly, they want to stick with 
big oil while people across the country suffer from either damage or 
costs that are moved over to them. Evidence continues to mount that big 
oil cannot be trusted. BP's CEO said this spill is not very serious, a 
very tiny amount, and the environmental impact would be very modest. He 
said it publicly.
  Well, they want to downplay the damage, but they cannot hold it. They 
cannot make the public believe, they cannot make those who are 
responsible for the measurement believe it. They do not want to pay the 
full cost even though they are responsible for the full damage.
  Transocean--it is amazing--tried to go to court citing an 1851 
maritime law to limit their liability. At the same time, we face 
billions in monetary damages, far more than the Exxon Valdez spill, and 
damage to industry is growing as tourism suffers. Twenty-two percent of 
gulf fisheries have been closed. Those responsible for messing it up 
must be responsible fully for cleaning up--just like families do, just 
like neighborhoods do, just like communities do.
  With billions and billions of profits, we know big oil can afford to 
bail itself out, and they ought to pay for it, period. So we are 
standing here once again asking our Republican colleagues a simple 
question: Whose side are you on? I think it is pretty evident. They are 
on the side of big oil while we stand up for ordinary Americans trying 
to eke out a living in these very difficult times.
  I hope there will be a reconsideration, and they will agree those who 
do the damage ought to pay for the damage they created.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reclaiming my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate my distinguished colleague from New Jersey 
who has been a stalwart on this issue, as well as in the past, on the 
whole question of the environment. The Senator is a member of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. I appreciate his comments.
  I know the Senator from Florida wanted to join us in a colloquy, as 
well as the Senator from Illinois. So let me ask unanimous consent to 
continue the colloquy with first Senator Nelson, then Senator Durbin, 
and then I will yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. VITTER. I object.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Let me ask the Chair if, as I have the floor, if I 
yield to a colleague for a question, is that not permissible?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is permissible to yield for a question.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield to my colleague from Florida 
for a question.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. If I may ask the Senator from New Jersey a 
question, can the Senator believe once we got up the live feed, 5,000 
feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, that once experts, 
specialists, professors, were able to see what, in fact, had been told 
to us was only 1,000 barrels a day, was revised to 5,000; that many 
experts in the country revised upwards, that it may be up as much as 
ten times as much as 5,000 barrels a day?
  Would the Senator acknowledge that those statements have been made?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I not only acknowledge that those statements have been 
made, but I know the Senator and others, including myself, have raised 
the fact that BP's credibility in this respect is not credible. In 
fact, scientists have gone into the gulf and made the determination 
that at the rate that spill is taking place, it is far beyond what BP 
told us. As a matter of fact, we have an interest in this regard not 
only, of course, because of the environmental consequences but also 
because of the royalties we should be claiming on all of that oil that 
is being let out.
  So the Senator is correct. This is one of the issues we are facing.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator would yield for a further 
question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, my question additionally to 
the Senator from New Jersey would be, given the fact of the pictures we 
now see of the devastation occurring in some of the marshlands in 
Louisiana, along with the shots of the few beaches that are now covered 
and the effect upon the wildlife, as well as the marine life--would the 
Senator say there is a great deal of concern among people all along the 
gulf coast, as well as the eastern seaboard of the United States, of 
what possibilities there are if there is that much oil in the gulf and 
what that could do to the economies of these coastal communities?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the Senator's question. The Senator 
himself has at various times informed this body of something that he 
has referred to as the loop current, which is, in essence, a natural 
current that could very well take the oilspill from the region of the 
gulf and move it along the Senator's State in Florida and beyond.
  This is an enormous concern. Already, as I said earlier, the U.S. 
Government has banned fishing products from three States, and the 
consequences of that just in one dimension in terms of the seafood that 
part of the country generates for us domestically, both in terms of the 
billions of dollars as well as the consumption of seafood is now one 
that has been barred by the U.S. Government.
  So we are increasingly seeing the consequences of this damage. There 
is real concern this could move in a direction that would be 
consequential to other States as well.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. One final question, Madam President, if I 
may----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. To the Senator from New Jersey.
  Can the Senator from New Jersey believe the fact that we hear people 
being apologist for BP? It is clear we hope and pray this ``kill'' of 
the well that is going to be attempted in the morning is going to be 
successful. But on all the safety devices that did not work--and

[[Page 9022]]

why was the well not attempted to be killed 5 weeks ago? Yet would the 
Senator believe there are people out there who are actually being an 
apologist for BP with the threat to the economy of the Southeastern 
United States as it is now?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, I appreciate the Senator's question and his 
concern. I think it is the concern of many. The reality is, I have 
heard comments that to hold BP accountable is un-American. Well, I 
think it is un-American to allow BP to go ahead, pollute the natural 
resources of the United States and not be held accountable in an 
unlimited fashion, which is the administration's position because they 
have created enormous consequences which we have yet to fully 
understand--we have yet to fully understand.
  I know the Senator from Illinois was just on a trip to the gulf.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield for a question.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I would be happy to yield for a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask a question of the Senator from New 
Jersey through the Chair. I know the Senator from New Jersey has been a 
leader on the whole question of liability and the damages that should 
be paid by BP for what they have done as a result of this Deepwater 
Horizon rig blowing up, 11 innocent people killed. We should always 
remember that as the first casualty and now the ongoing damage.
  I would ask the Senator from New Jersey, having just gone to the Gulf 
of Mexico yesterday with five of our Senate colleagues on a bipartisan 
trip--the Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar; Secretary of Homeland 
Security, Janet Napolitano--is it not true that in the first 3 months 
of this year, British Petroleum reported profits of $5\1/2\ billion, up 
135 percent over the first quarter of last year?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Yes. British Petroleum made about $5.6 billion in the 
first 3 months in profits--not proceeds, profits. Right now the 
liability cap that exists under the law is $75 million, 1 day of BP's 
profits, based on the first quarter's $94 million. So it is less than 1 
day's profit.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I can ask another question through the chair of the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Yesterday, during the course of this visit to Louisiana, 
there was a very compelling moment when we met with those oystermen and 
fishermen and shrimpers and charter boat proprietors who were directly 
affected by the BP oilspill.
  I would like to ask the Senator from New Jersey if he would comment 
or reflect on the following: There are approximately 20,000 shrimpers, 
crab and oyster fishermen in Louisiana alone. If the $75 million in 
damages were dedicated only to those seafood industry workers in that 
one State, it would equate to roughly $3,500 per person.
  I would like to ask the Senator from New Jersey, can there be any 
justice in that outcome; that BP would be limited in the amount they 
would pay out, the $75 million, when we look at the fact that there are 
those in similar professions in Alabama, in Mississippi, in Florida, 
and other States who are not even included in this calculation, if such 
a small amount was all that was paid to those who have clearly been 
directly damaged by this spill?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, the Senator's question is well put. Justice could 
not be achieved under the present cap. As a matter of fact, as I said 
earlier, today the United States declared a fishing disaster in three 
Gulf States: Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Louisiana itself has 
a $2.4 billion seafood industry, and it supplies up to 40 percent of 
all of the U.S. seafood.
  Clearly, just that figure alone gives us a sense that all of those 
individuals and communities and entities would not receive justice.
  Mr. DURBIN. My last question to the Senator from New Jersey: How much 
should the taxpayers of America pay for the negligence and wrongdoing 
of British Petroleum, this multibillion-dollar corporation?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Absolutely nothing. The only way to ensure the U.S. 
taxpayer pays absolutely nothing, not just for the cleanup but in terms 
of consequences to communities that would exceed the liability cap that 
exists right now under the law and for which BP has made statements but 
no commitment, such as a consent agreement, which would be binding upon 
BP--the taxpayers should pay absolutely nothing--the way to do that is 
to raise it to an unlimited cap.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. What is the parliamentary situation at the moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Wyden amendment 
No. 4183.
  Mr. McCAIN. I understand the Senator from Louisiana wants to speak 
and then the Senator from Wisconsin. I ask unanimous consent that 
following the Senator from Louisiana, following the Senator from 
Wisconsin, that I be put in line to speak for purposes of offering an 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I ask 
my colleague from New Jersey, was the floor relinquished?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey relinquished the 
floor.
  Is there objection to the unanimous-consent request of the Senator 
from Arizona?
  Mr. CORNYN. Reserving the right to object, I would propound a slight 
modification and ask to be recognized for purposes of offering an 
amendment following the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I do not believe I will 
object, if there is a unanimous-consent request pending, any of the 
Members who are going to speak in the following order, as the Senator 
from Arizona suggested, it would be appropriate then to be recognized 
to object, would it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could the Senator restate his question?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. The Senator has propounded a series of Members to speak 
or offer amendments. If one of those Members offers a unanimous-consent 
request during their presentation, then there would be an opportunity 
to object notwithstanding the unanimous-consent request before us?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I want to clarify, Senator 
Inouye just left the floor and said he would return shortly. Before we 
set aside any pending amendment, I would like to have his assent to 
that happening. If the Senator from Arizona would like to ask for 
recognition and each of the Members to speak to their amendments, I 
have no objection. But if that includes setting aside the pending 
amendment and filing a new amendment, I would like to have Senator 
Inouye on the floor before that decision is made.
  Mr. McCAIN. I amend my unanimous-consent request that the Senator 
from Louisiana, followed by the Senator from Wisconsin, followed by me, 
followed by the Senator from Texas, all to speak, and if the Senator 
from Hawaii agrees, for purposes of proposing amendments which requires 
setting aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, they would be speaking for 
debate only until Senator Inouye returns on the question of offering 
amendments. Will the Senator accept that language?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, if the Senator from 
Hawaii consents to having the pending business set aside so that one of 
the speakers can offer an amendment, I assume that would be acceptable.
  Mr. DURBIN. Absolutely.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Then I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Arizona?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 9023]]

  The Senator from Louisiana.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 3410

  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I am overjoyed that I have been let into 
this discussion considering that heavy oil is now getting into 
Louisiana marshland and is impacting my State and the State of Senator 
Landrieu more than any other in the country. It is an ongoing crisis. I 
would like to spend a few minutes to get us out of Washington politics 
and back into focus on that real and ongoing crisis. Those fishermen 
from south Louisiana Senator Durbin talked about, that is what they are 
focused on, that is what they are dealing with. Their way of life and 
their livelihood is absolutely threatened. That is what I would like us 
to focus on and deal with in a constructive way.
  I agree with Senator Menendez and Senator Lautenberg and others that 
the liability cap for economic damages which was set decades ago is way 
outdated. I have offered a permanent change to that to go into the 
future. In fact, my bill would set a cap for BP in this instance of $20 
billion because it is based on the last four quarters of the 
responsible party's profits. For this instance, that is double the 
liability cap of the Menendez original bill.
  Talking about UCing a permanent change of the law is, quite frankly, 
politics. That isn't going to pass the Senate by unanimous consent. I 
would like my version to pass by unanimous consent. I think it is a 
better approach, with all due respect, than the approach of the Senator 
from New Jersey. It would double the cap on BP than his original 
version would. But that is going to get objected to as well.
  In light of that, I have what I think is a constructive alternative 
which is to propose something to address this ongoing crisis. Oil is 
still flowing in the gulf, more and more heavy oil getting beyond the 
Louisiana barrier islands, infiltrating the Louisiana marsh. How about 
trying to deal with this ongoing crisis that the people of Louisiana 
face?
  With that in mind, I have introduced a liability proposal that is at 
the desk, that has been introduced, that could and should garner 
unanimous consent support. Let me outline what it is.
  Several of the speakers--Senators Durbin, Lautenberg, and others--
alleged that somehow there are folks in this Chamber who are being 
shrills for BP, who are defending BP. Personally, I didn't hear that. 
Certainly, that is not me. I represent the State of Louisiana, and we 
are dealing with this ongoing crisis and disaster much more than any 
other State in the Union. But let's attack this directly and try to 
address--and I think we could and should be able to do it by unanimous 
consent--this particular event.
  My bill, S. 3410, does that. My bill mandates that the cap on 
economic damages for BP for this event be lifted and that there be no 
cap. BP has said publicly that not once, not twice, but on numerous 
occasions, and has even put it in writing that they will disregard any 
cap. My bill would say: Fine, that is a contract offer, and we are 
going to accept it. That will be binding under legislation, under the 
law. Under S. 3410, we would remove any cap on BP for this incident.
  In addition, the other half of this bill establishes an expedited 
claims process because in this ongoing crisis in Louisiana, where 
people continue to hurt because of this ongoing spill, ongoing flow, 
they not only need their claim eventually paid in full, they need it to 
begin to be paid immediately. In this bill we establish an 
administrator to quickly and fairly resolve claims for economic 
damages. We establish an office of deepwater claims compensation to 
expedite that consideration. We set up offices within the gulf region 
to allow that claimant assistance, to advise people how to properly 
file their claim and expedite getting a claim. The other half of the 
bill, besides lifting the liability cap for economic damages on BP for 
this incident, expedites that claim process.
  With that in mind, in the spirit of actually trying to act with 
regard to this ongoing crisis in the gulf that certainly affects my 
State, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. 3410, my acceptance of liability and expedited 
claims bill; that the bill be read a third time and passed and that the 
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Will the Senator yield for a question before the 
ruling is made?
  Mr. VITTER. Certainly.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. I wanted to tell the Senator from Louisiana, because 
we had an opportunity yesterday when we went to his home State, 
traveled there with the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, we saw the spill from the air. We were at Port 
Fourchon. We heard the testimony from fishermen. We heard the testimony 
from those who are in the charter business. We heard testimony from the 
oystermen. We heard from parish mayors and heard their concerns about 
what will happen to them, their futures, their economic futures and 
that of their families. The concerns that were raised, of course, were 
that they be fully and fairly compensated.
  Is it the Senator's intention, then, that the statements that have 
been made by the executives from British Petroleum, the sworn 
testimonies we have had in the Energy Committee, and I know they have 
testified in other committees, that the commitments from British 
Petroleum would be codified as waivers of the liability caps which the 
Senators from New Jersey have talked about? Is it correct, then, that 
it is the intention of the Senator from Louisiana that these 
commitments would then be made enforceable under law so that the heart 
of this debate is understandably about not whether BP will pay but how 
long it will take for the victims to be compensated?
  Mr. VITTER. That is absolutely my intention. That is what this bill 
would do. Several Senators on the other side correctly pointed out that 
we should not depend on the goodwill of BP. So let's not depend on the 
goodwill of BP. Let's fix it here. Let's fix it now. BP has made this 
offer. They have even put it in writing. My bill would direct the 
Secretary of the Interior to accept that offer and codify this in the 
law so that with regard to BP and with regard to this ongoing crisis, 
there is no cap on economic damages.
  The second half of the bill would set up an expedited claims process 
to ensure that the folks hurting on the ground in Louisiana and perhaps 
eventually elsewhere are helped in a timely way.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. If I may follow up with the Senator from Louisiana on 
the expedited claims process, this is something we heard yesterday, the 
concerns from those saying they don't believe the claims process is 
transparent, is efficient, is easy enough. Are there the translators 
necessary to help those, for instance, Vietnamese shrimpers? Do we have 
the processes in place? If I understand the intention of the Senator 
from Louisiana with the expedited claims process, it is designed to not 
only make it more transparent but make it more readily accessible in 
terms of multiple resource centers; also establishes an advisory 
committee that consists of representatives of claimants of the 
responsible parties. We heard yesterday that people who have been 
affected want to know they are dealing with somebody in a position of 
authority to answer their questions, address their concerns. We 
understand that within this advisory committee on Deepwater Horizon 
compensation, these individuals will advise the administrator.
  There are also other provisions that are designed to protect the 
interests of the claimants, one of which I think is very important; 
that is, that those who may have filed incomplete claims because they 
simply were not aware of all the information that is needed, are 
notified by the administrator and allow the administrator to conduct 
hearings in a manner that best determines the rights of the parties.
  I think it is critically important that these processes be put in 
place. I stand with my colleague from Louisiana in supporting this 
effort, this measure, and ensuring that through this, BP is held 
directly accountable, and to make

[[Page 9024]]

sure there is an accelerated path to recovery for the growing number of 
victims in the gulf.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisiana wish to renew 
his unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. VITTER. Yes. I renew my unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator came up with 
a proposal. It is 40 pages. I just saw it. I look forward to reading it 
and seeing whether it truly achieves the goal we mutually have. We are 
moving the ball forward because both the Senator from Louisiana and the 
Senator from Alaska, who I understood originally opposed lifting the 
cap to an unlimited amount, now both believe the cap, at least in this 
instance, should be lifted to an unlimited amount.
  But reading the last 2 pages of the proposal we just got, and 
listening to the words of the Senator from Louisiana, there is a 
suggestion here that BP has, in essence, made a commitment or a 
contract, yet we have nothing before us other than testimony about a 
supposed willingness to pay all legitimate claims. They have 
equivocated when they have been asked before the committee, What does 
``legitimate'' mean, and several members asked them a series of 
different elements of ``legitimate,'' and they would not commit to 
that.
  Secondly, the letter the Senator has in his legislation that he wants 
to propound to pass right now says BP is ``prepared'' to pay above $75 
million. It does not say it ``shall'' pay above $75 million. It does 
not say ``will'' pay. There is no legal obligation for them to do it. 
So to consume that and say that is the basis under which we are making 
some contractual relationship is a problem.
  Finally, I think there is a problem between having legislation on a 
specific incident versus raising the cap in general. What happens when, 
God forbid, the next oilspill comes and a company is not taking the 
same position? It seems to me what we want to do is raise the cap in an 
unlimited fashion against any major oil company so we do not simply 
have to listen to their allegations that they are willing to pay any 
claims but that, in fact, they have a legal obligation to do so.
  So for all these reasons, and the fact that we just got this 
legislation, and because of the concerns that I do not think it reaches 
what we need to accomplish, I will have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, reclaiming my time, I am obviously 
disappointed. I think we are seeing that maybe there is a difference 
when your State is in the nexus of this and your State is under attack 
from this oil. I want to fix a problem, not just make a speech. We are 
not going to pass by unanimous consent a permanent change to the 
liability cap. I have a version that I think should pass, and I am 
going to keep fighting for it. Senator Menendez has a different 
version, and I am sure he will keep doing the same. I think mine is 
superior, but we can have that debate.
  But as oil continues to gush from this well, as heavy oil continues 
to get behind the barrier islands of Louisiana and starts to infiltrate 
our marsh--which is an ecosystem issue 100 times worse than simply 
hitting our barrier islands and beaches--I would actually like to solve 
the problem and not just come here to the floor and give a speech. My 
bill does that by focusing on this event and this company, BP, in a way 
that we should all be able to agree on.
  I commend the details of the bill to my colleagues. It does not 
depend on the language of any BP letter. It takes that as a starting 
point, and it removes all caps on economic damages for this event for 
this company. Why don't we do that by UC? We should be able to.
  In addition, it fixes a real ongoing problem by establishing an 
expedited claims process. That is necessary too. Because it is great to 
tell these fishermen that your full claim will be paid eventually in 
the long run, but as the old saying goes: We are all dead in the long 
run. And they are looking to their next month's boat payment, their 
next month's house payment.
  So I commend this serious legislation, which we should pass 
immediately, to my colleagues. Let's solve a problem. It is an ongoing 
problem. It is an ongoing crisis that sure as heck affects my State. 
Let's just not make a speech.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Wyden amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4204

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside 
that amendment for the purpose of calling up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Sorry. I was hoping Senator Inouye would give consent to 
this. As I said, I am filling in. He left the floor. If the Senator 
could withhold offering his amendment until he comes back.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, if I can respond to the Senator from 
Illinois, I will make my remarks, but I spoke to the Senator from 
Hawaii prior to this, and I believe there is no objection. If I could, 
I will proceed and then at the conclusion I will renew my request.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object at this moment, but I hope we can work it out 
very shortly.
  I just received word from staff that Senator Inouye approves of the 
Senator offering his amendment, so I withdraw my objection.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Then, Madam President, I renew my unanimous-consent 
request to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of calling 
up an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. It is amendment No. 4204, which is at the desk, and I 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, 
     Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Merkley, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4204.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require a plan for the safe, orderly, and expeditious 
    redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan)

       At the end of chapter 10 of title I, add the following:


  plan for safe, orderly, and expeditious redeployment of the united 
                  states armed forces from afghanistan

       Sec. 1019.  (a) Plan Required.--Not later than December 31, 
     2010, the President shall submit to Congress a report setting 
     forth a plan for the safe, orderly, and expeditious 
     redeployment of United States Armed Forces and non-Afghan 
     military contractors from Afghanistan, together with a 
     timetable for the completion of that redeployment and 
     information regarding variables that could alter that 
     timetable.
       (b) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment on behalf 
of myself, Senator Boxer, Senator Durbin, and Senator Merkley, that 
would require the President to provide a flexible timetable for the 
responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment is 
based on legislation I have introduced in the Senate, as I mentioned, 
with Senator Boxer, and also that Representative McGovern and 
Representative Jones have introduced in the House.
  Our amendment would require the President to be clear about his 
timeframe in Afghanistan. The President

[[Page 9025]]

has already indicated that his surge strategy in Afghanistan is time 
limited and he will begin redeploying troops in July 2011. All we are 
asking is that the President provide further details about how long he 
intends to leave our troops in Afghanistan, and about what variables 
could lead him to change his mind about this timetable.
  Before I go on, I want to explain what my amendment does not do. It 
does not set a specific date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. It does 
not require the President to actually redeploy troops. And it does not 
place any restrictions on funding.
  Rather, it simply requires the President to provide a timeline for 
the redeployment of U.S. troops. That timeline is not binding. In fact, 
the amendment directs the President to identify, as I said, what 
variables, if any, would warrant the alteration of that timeline. 
Secretary Clinton has already testified that she anticipates it will 
take 3 to 5 years to transition control to Afghan security forces.
  My bill would simply require the President to lay this out clearly 
and specifically, and to spell out what, if any, conditions would 
warrant a longer U.S. military presence. It allows him to provide some 
of this information in a classified annex, if that is appropriate.
  Congress needs information about expected troop levels in order to 
properly plan and pay for the war and to avoid future unpaid-for 
supplemental spending bills such as the one we are now considering. 
Frankly, I had hoped the days of budget-busting supplemental war 
spending bills were in the past. We have already spent hundreds of 
billions of dollars on this war and hundreds of billions more on Iraq. 
At a time of massive deficits, economic upheaval, and major domestic 
needs going unfilled, that level of deficit spending is simply 
unsustainable.
  In fairness, unlike his predecessor, President Obama has attempted to 
provide realistic budget estimates for war costs in the current and 
next fiscal years. But beyond fiscal year 2011, the President's budget 
numbers are unrealistically low. It would likely cost the American 
taxpayer $300 billion to $500 billion to conduct the President's 
strategy over and above the $300 billion we have already spent in 
Afghanistan.
  I have serious concerns about this strategy, and I would be more than 
happy to discuss those concerns with my colleagues on the floor. It is 
about time we had a real debate in the Senate about this war. But I 
hope even those who support the administration's surge agree it should 
be paid for. We cannot continue to do what the last administration did 
and add this massive cost to the national credit card.
  Al-Qaida's stated goal is to bankrupt the United States of America. 
If we keep running up debt to pay for the war, al-Qaida may well 
achieve its goal. If Congress cannot provide the will to pay for this 
war, then we need to seriously ask ourselves, How much longer can we 
keep fighting it?
  By requiring the administration to provide its exit strategy, we can 
also help to provide our men and women in uniform with greater 
certainty about their deployments. After almost a decade of war, our 
servicemembers deserve to know how much longer our military operations 
in Afghanistan are expected to continue and, frankly, so do the 
American people.
  We have many priorities and many pressing needs, both domestically 
and abroad. The American people deserve more information about the 
administration's plans in Afghanistan so they can evaluate those plans 
and weigh them against other priorities, including and especially the 
need to target growing al-Qaida affiliates around the world.
  Moreover, a timetable will help make clear to our partners in 
Afghanistan that our support is not unconditional and that we will not 
continue to bear the burden of our current military deployment 
indefinitely. That is an important message that the current flawed 
Afghan leadership needs to hear.
  While I am disappointed by his decision to expand our military 
involvement in Afghanistan, I commend the President for setting a start 
date for redeployment, namely, July 2011. Our allies have stated that 
it has helped ``focus the minds'' of our partners in Afghanistan and 
around the world. Having a start date is essential, but alone it is 
insufficient. It should be accompanied by an end date too.
  The President should convey to the American and Afghan people how 
long he anticipates it will take to complete his military objectives. 
So long as our large-scale military presence remains open-ended, al-
Qaida will have a valuable recruiting tool and our partners in 
Afghanistan will have an incentive to take a back seat, leaving U.S. 
troops and U.S. taxpayers on the hook.
  Again, my amendment is not about whether one of us supports the 
President or the troops. All of us support the troops and hope and wish 
the President has success in Afghanistan. But no matter how we feel 
about the President or about his approach in Afghanistan, I hope we can 
agree on the need for an exit strategy, as we approach the 9-year 
anniversary of a war that is showing no signs of winding down.
  As I said before, I, for one, have serious doubts about the 
administration's approach. In light of our own domestic needs, rising 
casualty rates in Afghanistan, and the emergence of al-Qaida safe 
havens around the world, an expensive, troop-intensive, nation-building 
campaign just does not add up for me. But my amendment does not dictate 
a particular strategy for Afghanistan. All it does is require the 
President to inform Congress and the American people about how long his 
military strategy is expected to take.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 4214

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and call up amendment No. 4214. And I thank the 
distinguished managers of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for himself, Mr. 
     Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Cornyn, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4214.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for National Guard support to secure the southern 
                   land border of the United States)

       At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:


national guard support to secure the southern land border of the united 
                                 states

       Sec. 309.  (a) Additional Amount.--For an additional amount 
     under this chapter for the deployment of not fewer than 6,000 
     National Guard personnel to perform operations and missions 
     under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in the 
     States along the southern land border of the United States 
     for the purposes of assisting U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection in securing such border, $250,000,000.
       (b) Offsetting Rescission.--The unobligated balance of each 
     amount appropriated or made available under the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) 
     (other than under title X of division A of such Act) is 
     rescinded pro rata such that the aggregate amount of such 
     rescissions equals $250,000,000 in order to offset the amount 
     appropriated by subsection (a).

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the amendment would fund the immediate 
deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to 
provide additional security since the situation on the border has 
greatly deteriorated during the last 18 months. The National Guard 
troops would remain on the border until the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Governors of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 
Texas, determines that the Federal Government has achieved 
``operational control'' of the border.
  Since I put this amendment together, we have been informed that the 
President will be asking for an additional $500 million to support 
border security and up to 1,200 National Guard to be sent to the 
border. I appreciate that. I

[[Page 9026]]

think it is a recognition of the violence on the border which has been 
really beyond description in some respects, particularly on the Mexico 
side.
  I appreciate the additional 1,200 Guard being sent, as well as an 
additional $500 million, but it is simply not enough. We need 6,000. We 
need 3,000 across the border and an additional 3,000 National Guard 
troops on the Arizona-Mexico border. I say that because of my many 
visits to the border, my conversations with the Border Patrol, and the 
time it will take to train an additional 3,000 troops just for the 
Arizona-Mexico border.
  I have colleagues waiting with other amendments, but I hope my 
colleagues appreciate the extent of the violence on the Mexican border 
and the dramatic increase in that violence that has taken place over 
the last several years. There was a time not that long ago that someone 
who wanted to come across our border illegally could do so if they were 
fortunate and would come across by themselves. That is no longer 
possible. We now have highly organized human smuggling rings and drug 
cartels that are working together. They are using the same routes, and 
unfortunately the so-called central corridor, the Arizona-Mexico 
border, has been where a great degree of violence and certainly a 
preponderance or a majority of human smuggling and drug smuggling has 
taken place.
  I would refer two numbers to my colleagues. Last year, in the Tucson 
sector of the Arizona-Mexico border, there were over 1.2 million pounds 
of marijuana intercepted on that border, to the point where I was told 
that the U.S. attorney didn't prosecute anything less than 500 pounds 
of marijuana intercepted. One other number: Last year on the Tucson 
sector of the Arizona-Mexico border, 241,000 illegal immigrants were 
apprehended trying to cross the Mexico-Arizona border. If you figure we 
catch one out of four, one out of five illegal immigrants who are 
coming across, that is about a million people, a million illegal 
immigrants coming across the Tucson sector, destroying people's 
property, destroying our wildlife refuges, and causing an environment 
of total insecurity amongst the citizens who live in the southern part 
of my State.
  I understand the controversy associated with the legislation that was 
passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed by the Governor. By the 
way, that legislation is less severe than Federal law--certainly 
nothing like the Mexican law regarding treatment of illegal 
immigrants--and it has been badly mischaracterized by administration 
officials who have admitted they haven't even read the bill. But the 
important aspect here is that I support that legislation because the 
Arizona Governor and Legislature acted in frustration because of the 
Federal Government's failure to carry out its responsibilities to 
secure our border.
  Again, 1.2 million pounds of marijuana, 241,000 illegal immigrants, 
and then the situation is compounded by the incredible violence--22,000 
Mexican citizens have been murdered on the Mexican side of the border 
in the last 3 years in the struggle between the Mexican Government and 
the drug cartels. It was predicted by many of us, as we saw this 
violence increase, that sooner or later it was going to spill over the 
border or affect American citizens. Three American citizens were killed 
on the Mexican side of the border as they made their way home to the 
United States. In March, a third-generation Arizona rancher was found 
dead on his property near the Mexican border, reportedly shot by a 
suspect who may have illegally entered our country. So the point is, 
this violence is at such a level that it makes a compelling argument 
for us to secure our border.
  I understand the liberal media and the mainstream media who have 
talked about our situation in Arizona. Most of them have never been 
within about 100 miles of the border. But the point is that the 
citizens in my State deserve the right to live a secure existence--not 
to be threatened, not to have their property overrun, not to have their 
homes broken into. A mother came to me at a townhall meeting and said: 
I am afraid to drop my children off at the school bus stop.
  This violence on the border is unspeakable. It is one of the least 
reported aspects of this whole issue, and I still am puzzled as to why. 
People are beheaded and their bodies hung at the overpass in Tijuana. A 
wedding took place not long ago, and the drug people came in and took 
the groom, his brother, and a nephew, and their bodies were found a few 
hours later. A young man who was part of the capture of one of these 
drug lords was lionized by the Mexican Government, and his whole family 
was murdered. This is a degree of brutality that threatens the very 
existence of the Mexican Government.
  I am proud we are working with the Mexican Government. I hope all of 
our colleagues understand we have spent over $1 billion. The corruption 
level that exists in Mexico today reaches to the highest levels of 
government. So really the only institution the government can rely on 
is the army.
  When we send the Guard to the border, we are told the presence of the 
Guard has an effect on these drug cartels. By the way, the drug cartels 
are watching everything on the border. They have the most sophisticated 
communications. They have sophisticated intelligence capability, and 
they are very efficient in their organization. So the Guard troops on 
the border in the past have had a very salutary effect. That is why we 
need 6,000 of them until such time as we can train additional Border 
Patrol and customs people to address this issue.
  So I wish to emphasize to my colleagues that we should not forget, to 
start with, that it is the United States of America that is creating 
the demand for these drugs, and at some point we have to address that 
issue too. But in the meantime, this violence that is taking place in 
Mexico on the Mexican side of the border, which has spilled over on our 
side, can only get worse until these drug cartels are brought under 
control and the human smugglers are brought under control, and that 
will only take place when our border is secure.
  We can secure the border. The Yuma sector, as my colleague from 
Arizona has pointed out, has taken measures, including incarceration of 
illegal immigrants, including increased fencing and surveillance. By 
the way, UAVs are a very important part of this equation. So we have 
been able to drastically reduce the illegal activity, both drug and 
human smuggling, in the Yuma sector of the border. My colleague from 
Texas will testify that in, I believe it is the McAllen sector of 
Texas, there has been significant and dramatic improvement. In San 
Diego, there is dramatic improvement. So those who feel we can't secure 
our border, there are great examples of our ability to do so with 
people, with fences, and with technology. We can do these things.
  We have to get an additional 6,000 troops to the border before there 
are more tragedies such as happened with Rob Prince, the rancher from 
Arizona, or the deputy all the way up in Pinal County, some 50 miles 
from the border, who was shot in the stomach, in pursuit of one of 
these drug people, with an AK-47.
  So I urge my colleagues and I urge all Americans to understand that 
we in Arizona didn't want to have this law passed by the legislature. 
It was done out of frustration because of the Federal Government's 
failure to exercise its responsibility. It is a Federal responsibility, 
something that the Secretary of Homeland Security emphasized in a 
letter, when she was Governor of the State of Arizona, on March 11, 
2008. It says: Clearly, Operation Jump Start has been highly 
effective--on and on about how important the help in insuring the 
border and bringing the Guard to the border has been. That is true 
today.
  So the Arizona Legislature and Governor did not wish to pass this 
legislation. It was enacted because the people of Arizona had an 
insecure border and live, in many cases, in an insecure environment. An 
obligation we have to all of our citizens is to allow them to live in a 
secure environment.
  By the way, this law the Arizona Legislature passed is far less 
severe in many respects than the Federal law and certainly far 
different from the law

[[Page 9027]]

in Mexico, which is very stringent in its provisions and penalties for 
illegal immigration.
  So we need relief in our State. We need relief in many places across 
the border. The drug cartels have to be stopped. Working with Mexico, I 
believe we can, over time, bring the border under control and rid the 
scourge of these drug cartels and these human smugglers.
  Let me finally say, because I know my colleagues are waiting, that 
the treatment of human beings by these coyotes, these human smugglers, 
is atrocious, unspeakable. They take them and they pack them into--
well, the other day, a U-Haul rental truck was apprehended. Sixty-seven 
human beings were packed inside. They take them to these drop houses. 
They hold them for ransom, and then after they are ransomed, sometimes 
they mistreat them even further. The human rights abuses that are 
taking place in these human smuggling rings is atrocious beyond 
description. That alone should compel us to get our borders secure and 
to provide for a legal system of immigration into our country.
  We welcome immigrants. We welcome our Hispanic heritage. We cherish 
it. Spanish was spoken in our State of Arizona before English. But we 
have to get the human smuggling and drug cartels under control because 
the security of our citizens and our Nation depends on it. So I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, I believe with 
the approval of the bill managers, to call up my amendment No. 4202, as 
modified, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I have not seen this 
amendment and I am not familiar with what it would do, so for the 
moment I would object until I have that opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this has been cleared by the majority 
bill manager, by Senator Inouye and his staff, I believe. Certainly the 
ranking member has no objection. I didn't know I had to clear 
amendments with all 100 Members of the Senate before I could even get 
them called up. I am prepared to call it up so we can then consider it 
and then we can debate it and vote on it. But this does not seem like a 
way to make any progress on this important underlying legislation.
  Well, I guess I will talk about it for a while.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I once more ask unanimous consent to 
call up my amendment No. 4202, as modified, for consideration, and I 
ask that the pending amendment be set aside for that purpose.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, I will state the same 
objection. I have not seen the amendment, and while I appreciate that 
the bill managers may have agreed to it, the reality is, as I 
understand it, any Member of the Senate can rise to object.
  I hope not to be compelled to object. But at this point, I will 
object.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object too. I 
have been here a long time. That is the first time I have seen that 
from the Senator from New Jersey. If that is the way we are going to do 
business here, this place will grind to a halt. I think it is 
discourteous of the Senator from New Jersey to do that. This place 
exists and runs mostly on comity. I hope that does not become a 
practice here or it will be practiced on this side as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as you have heard, the President came to 
speak to Republicans at lunch. We have talked about a lot of issues, 
including immigration reform and the like. Subsequent to that meeting, 
we were informed by e-mail that the President has made a major 
announcement with regard to the deployment of National Guard along the 
border.
  This amendment, which deals with border security and will help the 
Federal Government live up to its responsibility for border security, 
is exactly the kind of response I think the President and certainly all 
of us who care about border security would find helpful.
  Let me tell you what this amendment does. I know the Senator from New 
Jersey is looking through the amendment, and perhaps we can have a 
further consideration of the amendment when he is through.
  This amendment would strengthen border security along our southwest 
border. While I appreciate the needs of States such as Arizona, we have 
a number of States that share a common border with Mexico. We have to 
make sure we have the human resources, tactical infrastructure, and 
technology employed in order to protect Americans along the border and 
help contain the terrible drug violence--drug war, literally--that is 
being fought within a short distance of American cities.
  According to the El Paso Times, two young men were shot over the 
weekend in Juarez, one a nursing student at the University of Texas at 
El Paso, and another was a former student--an engineering major--from 
that same institution. Some news reports indicated that the two young 
men were returning from a Boy Scout camp when they were confronted by a 
shooter with an AK-47, who shot both of them multiple times, killing 
one of them.
  I am really not sure my colleagues understand how close these 
killings in Juarez are to the United States. It is like Minneapolis 
being across the river from St. Paul or Manhattan being across the 
river from Brooklyn. That is the proximity of the 1,000 deaths that 
have occurred so far this year in Juarez, on the Mexican side of the 
common border with El Paso. This may not capture headlines like those 
of other college campuses, but these deaths represent a terrible loss 
to our families, our communities, and our Nation. That is a reminder of 
just how dangerous this war is that is going on just across our border.
  It also raises the issue of what is going to be necessary in order 
for us to deal with our broken immigration system. I think the problem 
we have with our immigration system is that it is simply not credible 
when it comes to border security. We know that last year the Department 
of Homeland Security reported that some 540,000 people were detained 
coming across our border. We don't know how many made it across without 
being stopped and detained. All we can tell you is how many people 
actually were detained. It is commonly thought that between two and 
three people are missed for every one who is caught and detained. That 
is not anyone's definition of border security.
  What we need is more resources deployed along the border. The 
President's 2011 budget, for example, is a flat-line budget when it 
comes to actually providing more boots on the ground, when it comes to 
adding to the Border Patrol and the various Federal agencies whose job 
it is to protect our country and secure the border.
  The first thing my amendment does is it provides some help in the 
form of grants to State and local law enforcement, especially to those 
areas within 100 miles of the border. When the Federal Government 
doesn't do its job, when they fail to employ sufficient resources in 
order to secure the border, that burden falls on State and local law 
enforcement officials, particularly those within 100 miles of the 
border who feel the brunt of that absence of the Federal Government.
  Under this $300 million grant program, these funds could be used to 
purchase equipment, particularly so they can have interoperable 
communications, hire additional investigators, detectives, and other 
law enforcement personnel, and they could be used to cover salaries and 
expenses associated with border enforcement for the State and local 
officials who are stepping up and doing the job the Federal Government 
is not doing.
  Second, my amendment supports the southwest border task forces. It 
provides $140 million to increase personnel

[[Page 9028]]

and funding for the so-called HIDTA Program, or the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area Program, mainly in southwest border States. It also 
provides $44.7 million to the National Guard Counterdrug Program in the 
southwest border States.
  Third, my amendment provides additional support for U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection. It provides $144 million for the purchase of six 
additional Predator B unmanned aerial vehicles and ground control 
stations and funding for UAV pilots and support staff. It provides 
$49.4 million to allow Customs and Border Protection to purchase 10 
additional helicopters for border enforcement. It allocates $180 
million for border surveillance equipment and vehicles. It provides 
$200 million to hire 500 Customs and Border Patrol officers to staff 
southwest border ports of entry, as well as to fund infrastructure 
improvements at high-volume ports of entry.
  Fourth, my amendment provides additional support to the Drug 
Enforcement Administration. I had the opportunity the other day to have 
a classified briefing from the DEA which I will not go into here, but 
suffice it to say the Drug Enforcement Administration is fighting the 
good fight both here and in Mexico trying to help fight and beat the 
cartels. But they need more help. This amendment provides $30.4 million 
to hire an additional 180 intelligence analysts and support personnel 
for the DEA, and it would create four additional special investigative 
units.
  It provides $72 million to hire 281 special agents and investigators 
at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to help 
investigate and track illegal firearms. One of the things you will 
recall we heard from President Calderon is his concern about the 
weapons that are purchased in the United States and then bundled and 
trafficked south of the border into Mexico and used by the cartels. 
These ATF agents need additional help, and this amendment would provide 
the money to hire 281 additional ATF agents in order to help prevent 
the flow of weapons to the cartels south of the border.
  Finally, my amendment supports U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement. It provides $375 million to fund 500 additional 
investigators, 400 additional intelligence analysts, and 500 additional 
detention and removal officers. It provides $151 million to increase 
detention capacity by 3,300 beds. It allocates $180 million for 
equipment and border enforcement technology. It provides $89 million to 
expand repatriation programs that return illegal aliens to their home 
countries.
  The total pricetag for this amendment, which, as you can see, is 
rather detailed and breaks down into six different areas, is $2 
billion. That is a lot of money. But the first responsibility of the 
Federal Government is to keep our Nation safe, protect it. That is the 
No. 1 job of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is not 
getting the job done now. The brave men and women who, day-in and day-
out, fight the cartels, the human smugglers, people who smuggle weapons 
illegally, need help. They need technology, training, and equipment, so 
they can get the job done.
  So that it is not necessary for other States to take matters into 
their own hands in the absence of the Federal Government living up to 
its responsibilities, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we 
spend this money for the security of our country, for the security of 
our border.
  The good news is that, unlike a lot of spending that has happened 
here in recent months and years, this is not deficit spending. I am not 
proposing that we spend it using borrowed money; rather, that we use 
funds that were already appropriated by the stimulus package early in 
2009 in order to pay for this amendment. This is not spending our 
children's inheritance.
  I believe this is acting responsibly in responding to the first 
obligation of the Federal Government, which is to keep our people safe, 
to protect our borders and our national sovereignty.
  I thank my colleagues who signed on as original cosponsors, including 
Senators Hutchison, Kyl, and McCain. I hope all of my colleagues will 
support this amendment.
  I see both the bill manager and the Senator from New Jersey. I don't 
know whether he has had an opportunity to review the amendment. There 
is nothing particularly exotic or complex about it. It is rather 
straightforward and deals with a real problem.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Will the Senator yield before he offers the request?
  Mr. CORNYN. I will yield for a question.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I appreciate that. I look at the Senator's proposed 
amendment, and am I to understand that the Senator has $3.1 billion of 
rescissions to cover what he wants to do in his amendment?
  Mr. CORNYN. Responding to my colleague through the Chair, we were 
told that it would take $3.1 billion in rescission authority to come up 
with the $2 billion that would pay for the various provisions of the 
bill. I would be happy to explain that further, with our staffers 
present, to further satisfy the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. If my colleague will further yield, I understand what 
he just said. There is $3.1 billion in rescission in the amendment; is 
that fair to say?
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, that is correct.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank my colleague for yielding.


                    Amendment No. 4202, as Modified

  Mr. CORNYN. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment, and I call up my amendment No. 4202, as modified, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself, Mr. Kyl, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4202, as modified.

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To make appropriations to improve border security, with an 
 offset from unobligated appropriations under division A of Public Law 
                                 111-5)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. BORDER SECURITY ENHANCEMENTS.

       (a) Additional Amount for Counterdrug Enforcement.--For an 
     additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' of the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration, $30,440,000, of which--
       (1) $15,640,000 shall be available for 180 intelligence 
     analysts and technical support personnel;
       (2) $10,800,000 shall be available for equipment and 
     operational costs of Special Investigative Units to target 
     Mexican cartels; and
       (3) $4,000,000 shall be available for equipment and 
     technology for investigators on the Southwest border.
       (b) Firearms Trafficking Enforcement.--For an additional 
     amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' of the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, $72,000,000, of 
     which--
       (1) $68,000,000 shall be available for 281 special agents, 
     investigators, and officers along the Southwest border; and
       (2) $4,000,000 shall be available for equipment and 
     technology necessary to support border enforcement and 
     investigations.
       (c) National Guard Counterdrug Activities.--For an 
     additional amount for ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug 
     Activities, Defense'' for high priority National Guard 
     Counterdrug Programs in Southwest border states, $44,700,000.
       (d) High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program.--For an 
     additional amount for Federal Drug Control Programs, ``High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program'' for Southwest 
     border states, $140,000,000.
       (e) Land Ports of Entry.--For an additional amount to be 
     deposited in the Federal Buildings Fund, for construction, 
     infrastructure improvements and expansion at high-volume land 
     ports of entry located on the Southwest border, $100,000,000.
       (f) Border Enforcement Personnel.--For an additional amount 
     for ``Salaries and Expenses'' of U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection, $334,000,000, of which--
       (1) $100,000,000 shall be available for 500 U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection officers at Southwest land ports of 
     entry for northbound and southbound inspections;
       (2) $180,000,000 shall be available for equipment and 
     technology to support border enforcement, surveillance, and 
     investigations;
       (3) $24,000,000 shall be available for 120 pilots, vessel 
     commanders, and support staff for Air and Marine Operations; 
     and

[[Page 9029]]

       (4) $30,000,000 shall be available for additional unmanned 
     aircraft systems pilots and support staff.
       (g) Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Helicopters.--For an 
     additional amount for ``Air and Marine Interdiction, 
     Operations, Maintenance, and Procurement'' of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection, $169,400,000, of which--
       (1) $120,000,000 shall be available for the procurement, 
     operations, and maintenance of at least 6 unmanned aircraft 
     systems; and
       (2) $49,400,000 shall be available for helicopters.
       (h) Immigration Enforcement Personnel.--For an additional 
     amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' of U.S. Immigration and 
     Customs Enforcement, $795,000,000, of which--
       (1) $175,000,000 shall be available for 500 investigator 
     positions;
       (2) $75,000,000 shall be available for 400 intelligence 
     analyst positions;
       (3) $125,000,000 shall be available for 500 detention and 
     deportation positions;
       (4) $151,000,000 shall be available for 3,300 detention 
     beds;
       (5) $180,000,000 shall be available for equipment and 
     technology to support border enforcement; and
       (6) $89,000,000 shall be available for expansion of 
     interior repatriation programs.
       (i) State and Local Grants.--For an additional amount for 
     ``State and Local Programs'' administered by the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, $300,000,000, which shall be 
     used for--
       (1) State and local law enforcement agencies or entities 
     operating within 100 miles of the Southwest border; and
       (2) additional detectives, criminal investigators, law 
     enforcement personnel, equipment, salaries, and technology in 
     counties in the Southwest border region.
       (j) Offsetting Rescission.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 5 of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), 
     $3,100,000,000 of the amounts appropriated or made available 
     under division A of such Act that remain unobligated as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act are hereby rescinded.

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4175

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside and I be permitted to call up amendment 
No. 4175.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4175.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that parties responsible for the Deepwater Horizon 
oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico shall reimburse the general fund of the 
      Treasury for costs incurred in responding to that oil spill)

       On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (b) Reimbursement.--
       (1) Definition of responsible party.--In this subsection, 
     the term ``responsible party'' means a responsible party (as 
     defined in section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2701)) with respect to the discharge of oil that began 
     in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, 
     the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon in the 
     Gulf of Mexico.
       (2) Liability and reimbursement.--Notwithstanding any 
     limitation on liability under section 1004 of the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2704) or any other provision 
     of law, each responsible party--
       (A) is liable for any costs incurred by the United States 
     under this Act relating to the discharge of oil that began in 
     2010 in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the 
     mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf 
     of Mexico; and
       (B) shall, upon the demand of the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, reimburse the general fund of the Treasury for the 
     costs incurred under this Act relating to the discharge of 
     oil described in subparagraph (A), as well as the costs 
     incurred by the United States in administering 
     responsibilities under this Act and other applicable Federal 
     law relating to that discharge of oil.
       (3) Failure to pay.--If a responsible party fails to pay a 
     demand of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall request the Attorney 
     General to bring a civil action against the responsible party 
     (or a guarantor of the responsible party) in an appropriate 
     United States district court to recover the amount of the 
     demand, plus all costs incurred in obtaining payment, 
     including prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, and any other 
     administrative and adjudicative costs.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, this amendment is simple. It says 
that the parties responsible for the gulf oilspill must reimburse the 
government for every Federal dollar in this bill that goes to the 
oilspill response. To me, it is just a statement of pure logic. I thank 
Senator Murray for joining me in cosponsoring this amendment.
  It has been 36 days since BP's blown-out well began spewing damage 
from hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil uncontrollably into the 
Gulf of Mexico, and there is no end in sight. The spill is causing 
unimaginable devastation to wetlands, wildlife, and the way of life 
across the gulf. The prospect of oil entering the Loop Current in 
Florida, hitting the east coast of Florida, is becoming more likely.
  Now, President Obama--in addition to the funding provided for the 
wars in the supplemental and the Haiti disaster--has dispatched the 
Coast Guard, the Interior Department, the EPA, the Defense Department, 
and NOAA to the gulf to contain and clean up this disaster. Now we are 
about to provide millions of dollars in emergency supplemental funding 
for these efforts.
  The question for us today is simple: Who should pay for this effort? 
Should the American taxpayers be asked to pay for it or should big oil, 
the companies that caused this disaster, pay for it? I say it is the 
responsibility of these companies. They were unprepared to deal with 
this catastrophe. It was not our taxpayers. Therefore, the companies 
should pay all the bills, as expected.
  In the emergency supplemental, we often provide funds to deal with 
natural disasters. When a flood, hurricane, or tornado hits, Americans 
are accustomed to lending a hand to their neighbors, whether in their 
State or other States. But the oilspill in the gulf is not a natural 
disaster. It was caused either by neglect, recklessness, or otherwise 
by BP, Transocean, and Halliburton, all of which worked or had a large 
part of that drilling effort in the gulf. That is why my amendment 
requires reimbursements by the oil companies, the parties responsible, 
for any and all taxpayer funds spent on this response. It allows us to 
respond in the gulf without delay while making clear that the money in 
the bill is an advance, not a handout, for the oil companies.
  The oil companies can afford to pay the taxpayers back. BP made more 
than a $5 billion profit--more than $5 billion--in the first quarter of 
this year alone. Although BP first avowed to pay all claims, they then 
added a modifier, ``legitimate claims,'' and they are the ones who will 
determine the legitimacy of these claims.
  Every single day it becomes clearer that BP stands for ``broken 
promises.'' If the taxpayers are left with the tab for cleaning up 
BP's, Transocean's, and Halliburton's mess, funds for other vital 
services will simply dry up. It is common sense: Polluters must pay for 
their damage, not American taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4173

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I wish to speak about the Sessions 
amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. This is the 
amendment that would cap discretionary spending this year and for 
future years, irrespective of the needs of the government and the 
American people.
  I know our distinguished chairman, Senator Inouye, has already spoken 
about it. I note this is the fourth time the Senate has been asked to 
vote on

[[Page 9030]]

this amendment. The last three times it was defeated. Now we have to 
vote on it again. Perhaps we should have a rule here that after three 
strikes you are out.
  The amendment uses last year's budget resolution as its starting 
point. It will cut over $20 billion from the President's fiscal year 
2011 budget request.
  I share the goal of the sponsors of this amendment to limit Federal 
spending. Since I have been in the Senate, I have voted for billions of 
dollars in cuts in Federal spending. But the way this amendment is 
done, using a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel, it arbitrarily affects 
every Federal program in ways that most certainly will come back to 
haunt us.
  Not only will critical programs from defense to education to foreign 
policy be cut, the amendment requires a vote of three-fifths of the 
Senate for emergency spending, and in a mere 14 pages it seeks to 
basically do away with the role of the Budget Committee.
  I would hate to see a situation where, if we have a flood in 
Mississippi, and for some reason or another a minority of Senators say: 
Our states didn't have a flood, so why should we vote for this? Or if 
there were an earthquake in California and they need three-fifths, but 
a minority of Senators has other priorities. That's not the way it 
should work.
  I must admit, I take a somewhat long view of it. I have not been here 
as long as our distinguished chairman has or our distinguished former 
chairman, Senator Byrd. But I have been here longer than everybody else 
in this body. I urge people to be careful what they wish for. It 
appears that requiring 60 votes and the gridlock we are currently 
experiencing is not enough. The sponsors of this amendment want the 
body to be held hostage to a minority of two-fifths. As the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee said earlier, it is the wrong direction 
for the Senate to be going.
  Let me focus my brief remarks specifically on the effect the Sessions 
amendment would have on important national security programs funded in 
the State and foreign operations budget for fiscal year 2011 which 
begins on October 1.
  The amendment would cut $1.1 billion from the President's State and 
foreign operations budget request. A cut of that size would have 
significant and, I suspect, unintended consequences.
  I hope the proponents of this amendment or their constituents are not 
among those who want travel overseas and want their passports processed 
in a timely manner.
  I hope they do not mind that our embassies are not fully staffed and 
cannot properly represent Americans abroad. I hope if something happens 
to them or their constituents in Mexico, Kenya, Turkey, or any other 
foreign place and there is not an American consular officer who can 
help them in an emergency, that they will not complain because their 
amendment cut the funding for that consular officer's salary.
  I hope it does not matter that we would only be able to fund a 
portion of the global health and food security initiatives which, among 
other things, provide funds for maternal and child health and to 
prevent and respond to outbreaks of deadly contagious diseases, such as 
cholera, Ebola, and the Asian flu.
  I point out that these are not just threats in places halfway around 
the world, they are only a plane trip away from our shores.
  I hope the sponsors of this amendment are not concerned that it may 
mean we have to cut funding for exchange programs for students of 
predominantly Muslim countries where we are trying to show a different 
face of America, or democracy programs in the former Soviet Union or 
training programs for Iraqi police officers. There is a price for 
everything, and the funding for State and foreign operations is one of 
the best bargains in the Federal budget.
  Contrary to what some may believe, it consists of barely 1 percent of 
the entire budget. Aside from the U.S. military, it is how the United 
States exerts its influence around the globe. As we are trying to show 
in many parts of the globe, it is not just our military might that 
defines America, it is our global reach in humanitarian emergencies and 
diplomacy.
  At a time when China is sharply increasing its spending for these 
same types of activities and extending its sphere of influence to our 
hemisphere and around the world because they know it is in their 
Nation's best interest to do so, do we really want to cut the funding 
that enables the United States to compete? It makes no sense.
  I note that even though it is in the State Department budget, top 
officials at the Pentagon understand this very well. Secretary Gates 
and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have both 
urged the Congress to fully fund the State and foreign operations 
budget. They know these are areas where our diplomats can handle things 
better at far less cost and with longer lasting effects.
  The sponsors of this amendment have supported the deployment of our 
troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have voted to borrow the money--
the only time, certainly, in my lifetime, that we have gone to war 
anywhere and not paid for it. But military force alone, even though it 
is exerted through great sacrifice by the very brave men and women in 
our military, can only provide the conditions for longer term economic 
and political stability in those countries. The State and Foreign 
Operations budget provides the funds to build that economic growth and 
political stability.
  I ask unanimous consent the letters from both Secretary Gates and 
Admiral Mullen be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaufman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. No one disagrees that we need to control spending. The 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee 
work very hard to control spending. As a member of that committee I 
know the votes I have cast to substantially cut spending. We need to 
eliminate programs that are wasteful or can no longer be justified. We 
need to be frugal about what new programs we fund.
  But just as we are in a different world today than when I came to the 
Senate 35 years ago, the things we need to do to respond to the 
challenges of today are different than they were 35 years ago. The way 
we respond to those challenges is different than when the distinguished 
Appropriations chairman was gallantly fighting to protect our Nation in 
World War II--something which we all honor and the Nation has honored 
when he received the Congressional Medal of Honor. But he, like so many 
others, tried to make the world safe for democracy, but I think he also 
wanted to make it a world where America could achieve its goals through 
the strength of its ideas and not just through its military might.
  This amendment is not going to make a dent in the Federal deficit by 
cutting $1.1 billion from the State and Foreign Operations budget. The 
amendment, however well intentioned, would permit a small minority of 
the Senate to dictate to the majority. It would limit the global 
influence of the United States. It would cede more of our influence to 
China. It would diminish our ability to develop and access export 
markets that are vital to our economy and vital to increasing jobs here 
in the United States. At worst of all, it would weaken our security 
alliances.
  I urge Senators to reject it.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                             Secretary of Defense,


                                                     Pentagon,

                                     Washington, DC, Apr 21, 2010.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my strong 
     support for full funding of the President's FY 2011 foreign 
     affairs budget request (the 150 account) which, along with 
     defense, is a critical component of an integrated and 
     effective national security program.
       I understand this year presents a challenging budget 
     environment, with competing

[[Page 9031]]

     domestic and international pressures. However, I strongly 
     believe a robust civilian foreign affairs capability, coupled 
     with a strong defense capability, is essential to preserving 
     U.S. national security interests around the world.
       State and USAID partners are critical to success in 
     Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. Our military and civilian 
     missions are integrated, and we depend upon our civilian 
     counterparts to help stabilize and rebuild after the fight. 
     As U.S. forces transition out of war zones, the U.S. 
     government needs our civilian agencies to be able to assume 
     critical functions. This allows us, for example, to draw down 
     U.S. forces in Iraq responsibly while ensuring hard-fought 
     gains are secured. Cuts to the 150 account will almost 
     certainly impact our efforts in these critical frontline 
     states.
       In other parts of the world, the work performed by 
     diplomatic and development professionals helps build the 
     foundation for more stable, democratic and prosperous 
     societies. These are places where the potential for conflict 
     can be minimized, if not completely avoided, by State and 
     USAID programs--thereby lowering the likely need for 
     deployment of U.S. military assets.
       In formulating his request for FY 2011, the President 
     carefully considered funding needs for the budget accounts 
     for both foreign affairs and national defense, taking into 
     account overall national security requirements as well as 
     economic conditions. I believe that full funding of these two 
     budget accounts is necessary for our national security and 
     for ensuring our continued leadership in the world. I hope 
     you will take this into account when acting upon the 
     President's FY 2011 budget request.
           Sincerely,
     Robert M. Gates.
                                  ____

                                                   Chairman of the


                                        Joint Chiefs of Staff,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 2010.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Majority Leader: As the Congress moves to finalize 
     the budget for FY 2011, I want to offer my strong support for 
     fully funding the Department of Defense and related agencies. 
     I also want to reinforce the views expressed in Secretary 
     Gates' letter of April 21 and Secretary Clinton's letter of 
     April 20 (copies attached) to Senator Kent Conrad, requesting 
     full funding of the Department of State and USAID. We are 
     living in times that require an integrated national security 
     program with budgets that fund the full spectrum of national 
     security efforts, including vitally important pre-conflict 
     and post-conflict civilian stabilization programs.
       Diplomatic programs are critical to our long-term security. 
     I have been on record many times since 2005 expressing my 
     views of the importance of fully funding our diplomatic 
     efforts. As Chief of Naval Operations, I said that I would 
     hand over part of my budget to the State Department, ``in a 
     heartbeat, assuming it was spent in the right place.'' 
     Diplomatic efforts should always lead and shape our 
     international relationships, and I believe that our foreign 
     policy is still too dominated by our military. The diplomatic 
     and developmental capabilities of the United States have a 
     direct bearing on our ability to shape threats and reduce the 
     need for military action. It is my firm belief that 
     diplomatic programs as part of a coordinated strategy will 
     save money by reducing the likelihood of active military 
     conflict involving U.S. forces.
       I am told that the Senate Budget Committee reduced the 
     international affairs budget by $4 billion, and I respect and 
     appreciate the tough choices the committee had to make. I 
     would ask that as you finalize the spending outlines for FY 
     2011, you underscore the importance of our civilian efforts 
     to the work of the Defense Department, and ultimately, to our 
     Nation's security. Because of the increasingly integrated 
     nature of our operations, a $4 billion decrement in State and 
     USAID budgets will have a negative impact on ongoing U.S. 
     military efforts, leading to higher costs through missed 
     diplomatic and developmental needs and opportunities. A 
     fully-integrated foreign policy requires a fully-resourced 
     approach. Our troops, Foreign Service officers and 
     development experts work side-by-side in unprecedented and 
     ever-increasing cooperation as they execute our strategic 
     programs. We need to continue to grow the important 
     capabilities that are unique to our non-military assets, 
     ensuring they have the resources to enhance our security and 
     advance our national interests, in both ongoing conflicts as 
     well as in preventative efforts.
       As always, I appreciate your strong support of our men and 
     women in uniform, and appreciate your considering my 
     perspective as you finalize the FY 2011 budget.
       The more significant the cuts, the longer military 
     operation will take and more and more lives are at risk.
                                                      M. G. Mullen
                                               Admiral, U.S. Navy.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be added as a 
cosponsor of amendment No. 4179, offered by the distinguished Senator 
from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is 4175 offered by the 
Senator from New Jersey.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, reluctantly I object. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum so I may discuss this matter with Senator Collins.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
  Objection is heard.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, 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.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4218

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am not going to call up my amendment at 
this time because I understand there is an objection on the other side. 
But I am going to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss my 
amendment, which is No. 4218. This is an amendment I have offered on 
behalf of myself and Senators Inhofe, Alexander, Brown, Brownback, 
Gregg, Snowe, Coburn, Bond, Murkowski, Voinovich, Burr, Begich, and 
Corker.
  On April 22, a new Environmental Protection Agency regulation 
regarding lead paint abatement went into effect. Lead paint has been of 
great concern to me for a number of years. I actually joined with the 
Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, in holding field hearings on 
the dangers of lead paint in older houses several years ago. It has 
long been a concern of mine. I support the purpose of this rule because 
we want to continue our efforts to rid toxic lead-based paint from our 
homes.
  I am deeply concerned, however, as are many of my colleagues, that 
the EPA has completely botched the implementation of this rule. The 
rule requires that contractors who were hired to do work in homes that 
have lead paint must first be certified to perform this work. We put 
the cart before the horse with this rule and the result is that the EPA 
has not ensured that there is a sufficient number of trainers to 
provide the training and the certification for these contractors. That 
means many contractors simply cannot get the necessary certification in 
most States.
  The result is that small business men and women are losing out on 
jobs at a time when many of them are in desperate need of work. 
Ironically, it also means that lead paint that homeowners want removed 
or mitigated will not be.
  In my State of Maine, for example, as of last week we have only three 
EPA trainers in the entire State to certify contractors. Just over 10 
percent of the State's contractors have been certified. Hundreds of 
Maine's contractors have signed up for the training but they have been 
forced to wait. Their names are languishing on waiting lists, some for 
as long as 2 months.
  It is hard to envision how much worse a job EPA could have done in 
rolling out this regulation and it is not as if EPA did not know this 
was coming. EPA has had years to plan for the proper implementation of 
this regulation. Unfortunately, the EPA's rule carries a big penalty 
for contractors who do not get the required training. If contractors 
who perform work in homes built before 1978 are not EPA certified, they 
face fines of up to $37,500 per violation per day. Many of the painters 
in my State doing this work don't earn $37,000 in an entire year. How 
unfair it is when it is the EPA's fault in many cases that they are not 
certified. The lack of training and the EPA fines are creating a no-win 
situation. If contractors who have not received the EPA training work 
in these

[[Page 9032]]

older homes, they face the possibility of literally losing their 
businesses, of being fined out of existence, due to the severity of the 
EPA fines. Meanwhile, the lead paint remains, raising the threat of 
lead poisoning and its significant health impacts.
  I have been trying to work with EPA officials since this problem 
first became evident to me in early March, but they have offered 
absolutely no reasonable accommodations, no reasonable solutions. In 
fact, it took the EPA 7 weeks to even offer any ideas for getting more 
trainers to the State of Maine--and even then the EPA's proposals were 
unworkable.
  I come to the floor to offer a common sense solution to a problem 
created by Washington's poor planning. My bipartisan amendment, which 
is cosponsored by so many of my colleagues--and let me give the list 
again. Senators Alexander, Inhofe, Brown, Brownback, Gregg, Snowe, 
Coburn, Bond, Murkowski, Voinovich, Burr, Begich, and Corker--would 
prohibit the EPA from imposing fines against contractors who have 
signed up for the required training classes by September 30 of this 
year. This delay will allow, I hope, adequate time for contractors to 
comply with the law and to get the required training without fear of a 
fine that could well put them out of business.
  To be clear, our amendment does not stop the EPA from punishing those 
who willingly break the law and endanger a child's well-being. It 
simply gives the EPA more time to ensure that there is a sufficient 
number of trainers in each State, and it simply protects that small 
painter, that small businessman, that small contractor, from unfairly 
being fined when it is the EPA's fault he or she cannot get the 
required training.
  Inconceivably, I have heard the EPA say it has trained an adequate 
number of people in Maine, so let me give you the statistics for my 
State, because they are typical of many States. First, EPA estimates 
that there are only 1,400 contractors in Maine. In fact, however, there 
are more than 20,000 contractors in our State; not 1,400, but 20,000 
people who need to be trained.
  EPA makes another erroneous assumption. It assumes that all of these 
people are part of large businesses and that only one person at each 
business needs to be certified.
  EPA also assumes that contractors specialize in doing just old homes 
or new homes. Completely false. That makes no sense at all in a rural 
State such as Maine, which has some of the oldest housing stock in the 
country and most painters are small shops, usually just an individual 
who is self-employed. At most, he might be part of a small business 
where there are two or three people who are doing the work. In 
addition, these individuals work in mixed communities which have older 
homes and newer homes. This is typical of every community in my State.
  We cannot ask them to give up working in older homes simply because 
an economist at the EPA does not understand what our housing stock 
looks like in Maine. Furthermore, most of the EPA's classes have been 
held in the southern part of the State. It is not feasible for people 
to have to travel hundreds of miles in order to obtain this training. I 
have heard that criticism and that problem from my colleagues in other 
States as well, that the EPA is offering the classes only in cities and 
has completely neglected the rural parts of their states.
  My home State of Maine is not the only State trapped in this 
bureaucratic dilemma. An EPA evaluation from early May shows, for 
example, that Hawaii only has two trainers. I cannot imagine how that 
can work in Hawaii given the islands. That is not feasible. Mississippi 
has only one trainer in the entire State. Three States--Louisiana, 
Wyoming, and South Dakota--do not have a single EPA-certified trainer.
  This is just not fair. It is not fair that these small contractors 
live under the threat of these onerous fines that would put many of 
them out of business, when it is not their fault they cannot obtain the 
training--it is EPA's fault.
  All of us understand that lead is a dangerous toxin and we must work 
to do whatever we can to keep our homes and our children safe. But the 
burden should not fall upon the shoulders of small contractors and 
construction professionals, painters and others, who are trying their 
best to comply with EPA's rule.
  Spring is home renovation season in most States. The small business 
men and women of Maine are just gearing up for the spring and summer 
months, and they are trying to recover from the great recession which 
has been so hard on their businesses. The onerous and unfair fines of 
more than $37,000 per day could put many of them out of business even 
as they wait for an EPA training class to become available.
  As they are waiting, if they choose not to do this work, they are 
losing income as well, and that is unfair. All I am attempting to do 
with this amendment is provide the EPA with more time in order to 
increase the number of certified trainers and the offering of these 
classes.
  With enough trainers, we can eventually ensure the success of this 
program. But without enough trainers, we are guaranteeing its failure 
and penalizing innocent contractors who are simply trying to make a 
living and who have been unable to secure the training required by the 
EPA.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Kagan Nomination

  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise today to discuss the President's nomination of 
Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice on the U.S. 
Supreme Court. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Solicitor 
General Kagan will begin on June 28. But my consideration of her will 
not begin then. As so many of my colleagues, I began considering her 
the day her nomination was announced because I want to learn as much as 
I can about President Obama's choice to fill one of the most important 
jobs in the land, a job as a Supreme Court Justice.
  Even though there are many questions we all still need to ask this 
nominee, and we do that in the hearings, I would like to speak today on 
how she appears to me based on her initial job interview, the interview 
I had in my office, and the work that has been done so far to gather 
information about this nominee.
  After meeting with her and hearing about her, I can tell you that I 
am very positive about her nomination. Solicitor General Kagan is an 
intellectual heavyweight who brings an incredibly broad variety of 
legal experiences to this nomination. In so many of the legal jobs that 
she has had, she has been a trailblazer.
  In 2003 Kagan became the first woman in Harvard Law School's 186-year 
history to serve as dean. It is hard enough to manage lawyers, as I 
know from my former job as county attorney, much less manage law 
professors. She did it with much aplomb.
  In 2009 she became the first woman to serve as Solicitor General, the 
chief lawyer representing the interests of the American people before 
the Supreme Court. One particularly interesting aspect of her 
background is that she has worked in all three branches of government. 
She served as a Supreme Court clerk, as an adviser to then-Senator 
Biden when he was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and, 
of course, she has worked in two different Presidential 
administrations: in the White House Counsel's Office as a domestic 
policy adviser and now as Solicitor General.
  When I look at her resume, I notice two things: One, she has an 
appreciation of how the law impacts the lives of ordinary Americans. 
When you are involved in considering the nitty-gritty details of 
different policies, when you have to figure out where to compromise to 
protect Americans, and where to hold firm on a piece of legislation or 
a position you take, you have to know exactly what the consequences of 
your recommendations will be. You have to think about the lives that 
will be impacted.

[[Page 9033]]

  The second thing I notice is she has a track record of listening to 
different viewpoints and bringing people together, whether it was her 
track record of recruiting law talents while dean, whether it was 
conservative law professors or liberal law professors, or working with 
Senators from both parties on tobacco legislation. She has practical 
experience reaching out to and working with people who have very 
different beliefs and views than she does. That is increasingly 
important on a very divided Supreme Court.
  Some of my colleagues have questioned whether she is fit to be a 
Supreme Court Justice because she has never been a judge. First, I have 
to wonder whether these same colleagues would have objected to putting, 
say, Chief Justice Rehnquist on the Supreme Court--he was not a judge 
before--or Justice Brandeis or Justice Frankfurter because they did not 
have any judicial experience. Would that have been the excuse, because 
they were not nominated?
  In fact, more than one-third of all Supreme Court Justices in the 
history of this great country were not judges before. If we think about 
the Court right now, every single one of them came from what has been 
called the judicial monastery.
  I think it is great that we actually have a nominated candidate that 
came from a different part of the world, someone who was in the private 
sector, someone who has worked in the U.S. Government, who has managed 
people, who has had to make tough decisions. I think that is a good 
thing. But, additionally, I think it is important that we bring someone 
with that kind of perspective.
  Solicitor General Kagan brings so many interesting legal experiences 
to the table. Beyond that, her current job, Solicitor General, is 
actually referred to as ``the Tenth Justice'' because it is such an 
important position. She represents the American people before the 
Supreme Court. That is incredibly important training for an individual 
nominated to serve on the Court.
  It is worth noting that the last Solicitor General who subsequently 
became a Supreme Court Justice was no other than Thurgood Marshall, 
Elena Kagan's mentor and former boss. So I hope we can put to rest this 
idea that only judges are qualified to be Justices because if that were 
the rule in this country, one-third of our Justices, so many of them 
great ones, as noted by people from both sides of the aisle, would 
never have gotten to the Court.
  I also want to talk about one other issue that has come up in the 2 
weeks since Elena Kagan was nominated. I wish I did not have to talk 
about this issue because it is not worthy of discussion in this great 
Chamber. It is not something we would be normally talking about with a 
Supreme Court Justice.
  But I learned last year, during Justice Sotomayor's hearings, that 
Supreme Court nominations truly bring out the ``silly season'' in 
Washington, DC. Last year, for example, there were stories and 
comments, mostly anonymous it is worth noting, that questioned Justice 
Sotomayor's judicial temperament.
  According to one news story about the topic, ``[Judge Sotomayor] 
develop[ed] a reputation for asking tough questions at oral arguments 
and for being sometimes brusque and curt with lawyers who were not 
prepared to answer them.'' As I said last year, where I come from 
asking tough questions and having very little patience for unprepared 
lawyers is the very definition of being a judge. As a lawyer, you owe 
it to the bench and to your clients to be as well prepared as you can 
be.
  As Nina Totenberg said on National Public Radio:

       If Sonia Sotomayor sometimes dominates oral argument at her 
     court--if she's feisty, even pushy--then she should fit right 
     in at the U.S. Supreme Court!

  I think it was Justice Ginsburg during that time who commented: Well, 
look at Breyer. Look at Scalia. She will fit right in.
  This became an issue at our hearings and she was questioned about 
this. I thought we had come to a time in our country where we could 
confirm as many gruff, to-the-point female judges as we have confirmed 
male judges.
  Well, this year is no different. There was a lengthy article this 
weekend in one of our major newspapers about Elena Kagan's clothing, 
describing it as--I will say in rather critical terms, it talked about 
at length her leg-crossing style. Now I have to say, I took note of 
this since it was compared to my leg-crossing style.
  I have to say I never thought I would be discussing this in this 
Chamber. But, in fact, this was a major article that stirred much 
commentary all over the blogs. I do not think such an article was ever 
written about Chief Justice Roberts. I am trying to picture this, if he 
was in a meeting with Senator Hatch, if there was a major article 
written about the two of them and who was crossing their legs and who 
was crossing their ankles and how they were facing each other. I do not 
think that happened.
  Was such an article written about Justice Alito or was such an 
article written about Justice Rehnquist when he was being considered by 
this great body? It is my 50th birthday today, and I must admit, I 
thought we were somewhat beyond what happened to me when I was 10 years 
old in Beacon Heights Elementary School and decided one day to wear 
bell-bottom pants, flowered bell-bottom pants to fourth grade, and was 
kicked out of my class by Mrs. Quady. I was told: At Beacon Heights 
Elementary School girls only wear dresses. I had to go home and change 
my clothes.
  Well, a lot has happened since those days in fourth grade. Now on my 
50th birthday, it is my hope that as we consider the Solicitor General 
of the United States, Elena Kagan, she will be considered on her 
merits, she will be asked tough but fair questions; the questions 
should not be where does she shop, but, rather, does she have the 
first-rate intellect, unimpeachable character, and judicial temperament 
to join the highest Court in the land.
  That should be what we are talking about at the hearing. That should 
be what the press is focused on. That should be what my colleagues are 
to decide on. Just think about how far we have come. When Sandra Day 
O'Connor graduated from law school 50-plus years ago, the only offer 
she got from a law firm was for a position as a legal secretary.
  Justice Ginsburg faced similar obstacles. When she entered Harvard in 
the 1950s, she was one of only 9 women in a class of more than 500, and 
one professor actually asked her to justify taking a place that could 
have gone to a man. Later she was passed over for a prestigious 
clerkship despite her impressive credentials. In the course of more 
than two centuries, 111 Justices have served on the Supreme Court. Only 
three have been women. If confirmed, Elena Kagan would be the fourth 
and, for the first time in its history, three women would take places 
on the bench when arguments are heard this fall. Let's focus on what 
matters. Let's focus on the credentials, on the qualifications, on how 
she answers the questions, not on how she crosses her legs.
  I yield the floor.


                    Amendment No. 4175, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask unanimous consent the Lautenberg amendment No. 4175 
be modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       (b) Reimbursement.--
       (1) Definition of responsible party.--In this subsection, 
     the term ``responsible party'' means a responsible party (as 
     defined in section 1001 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 
     U.S.C. 2701)) with respect to the discharge of oil that began 
     in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, 
     the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon in the 
     Gulf of Mexico.
       (2) Liability and reimbursement.--Each responsible party--
       (A) is liable for any costs incurred by the United States 
     under this Act relating to the discharge of oil that began in 
     2010 in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of,

[[Page 9034]]

     the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon in the 
     Gulf of Mexico; and
       (B) shall, upon the demand of the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, reimburse the general fund of the Treasury for the 
     costs incurred under this Act relating to the discharge of 
     oil described in subparagraph (A), as well as the costs 
     incurred by the United States in administering 
     responsibilities under this Act.
       (3) Failure to pay.--If a responsible party fails to pay a 
     demand of the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to this Act, 
     the Secretary of the Treasury shall request the Attorney 
     General to bring a civil action against the responsible party 
     (or a guarantor of the responsible party) in an appropriate 
     United States district court to recover the amount of the 
     demand, plus all costs incurred in obtaining payment, 
     including prejudgment interest, attorneys fees, and any other 
     administrative and adjudicative costs.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I had intended to ask unanimous consent to 
set aside an amendment in order to offer amendment 4191, but I 
understand there are certain Senators who want to review that amendment 
before that request is made. That is certainly a reasonable suggestion. 
I will withhold my request to offer the amendment. I hope I will have a 
chance to offer it later. I want to let my colleagues know what I 
intend to do.
  This amendment would reestablish the moratorium on offshore oil and 
gas drilling in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, the South Atlantic 
and the Straits of Florida Planning Areas. As I am sure colleagues are 
aware, several weeks ago the President indicated he would lift the 
moratorium on offshore drilling along the Atlantic from the New Jersey-
Delaware border south all the way to the Florida Keys, that he would 
also lift the moratorium on parts of Alaska, but that he would maintain 
a moratorium on the Pacific coast and on the North Atlantic. Since that 
announcement has been made we all know what has happened in the Gulf of 
Mexico. We have seen what happened with the BP oilspill--the loss of 
life and the horrific impact it has had on the environment.
  When the President announced his policy of additional offshore 
drilling sites, he stated, through the Secretary of the Interior, that 
there are places in the United States that are environmentally too 
sensitive to consider for new oil and gas exploration and production. 
He cited the entire west coast of the continental United States and the 
North Atlantic. Those who are familiar with the mid-Atlantic know it is 
also too sensitive an area from an environmental point of view to take 
the risk on new offshore drilling. I mention this specifically because 
there is a lease sale site--220--50 miles off the Virginia coast and 50 
miles due east of the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, and just 60 miles 
from the border of the Assateague Island National Seashore that is 
actively being considered for oil exploration. Recently, the Department 
of Defense weighed in with objections to that because naval operations 
use a large part of that area. It is about 2.9 million acres.
  My point is that expected reserves there are minuscule compared to 
our national needs and the risk factors are significant. If we were to 
have anywhere near the type of spill that happened in the gulf 50 miles 
off the entrance to the Chesapeake Bay, it would have a catastrophic 
impact for generations to come on the Chesapeake Bay and on the beaches 
not only in Maryland and Virginia but in Delaware and New Jersey. 
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
prevailing winds in our region blow toward the shore or along the shore 
72 percent of the time, making it much more likely that any spill that 
short a distance from the shore would end up affecting our coastal 
areas. I say that knowing full well there is not much oil to drill for 
out there.
  It is interesting to point out that 79 percent of our recoverable 
offshore oil and 82 percent of our recoverable offshore natural gas is 
already open to drilling. The mineral companies already have 
significant areas where they can drill. There is only a small amount 
left. More important, if we go after all of our known oil reserves we 
have in this country, we have less than 3 percent of the world's oil 
reserves, known reserves. But we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. 
It is clear to all of us that we need to develop an energy policy that 
makes us energy secure, that helps us create and save jobs in America 
and is friendly toward the environment. The best investment we can make 
is in conservation, alternative and renewable energy sources, and 
safely developing resources on existing leases in order to accomplish 
that.
  For many years, there was a moratorium on offshore drilling. That 
moratorium was imposed by Congress and by Executive Orders. But we were 
unable to extend the Congressional moratorium in 2008 and because of 
the actions of the previous administration, that moratorium no longer 
exists. The purpose of this amendment is to say that none of the funds 
made available in this act--and there are funds made available in this 
bill to deal with the oil spill issue--can be used for pre-leasing, 
leasing or any other activity off the Atlantic coast or the Straits of 
Florida. The west coast is protected; the administration did not 
propose drilling there. So, too, is the North Atlantic. But to be as 
emphatic as possible, I included the North Atlantic Planning Area in my 
amendment to send a message that we don't want drilling anywhere from 
Maine to the Florida Keys. Alaskans have their opinions on the way that 
they believe drilling should be handled there. We can get to that 
legislation separately. Certainly, with BP Oil currently under 
investigation, I hope it will be the unanimous view of this body that 
we don't want to see any new areas drilled until after we have had a 
full investigation into what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, to find 
out why we didn't have the regulatory system in place to protect our 
environment and protect public safety, to protect small businesses and 
property owners, and to protect taxpayers, why that regulatory system 
was not in place.
  Before we consider new areas, we certainly want to make sure we have 
reviewed the regulatory structure that is in place and taken the steps 
necessary to fix it. This amendment would express our intention that 
until that is done, we don't want to see any new offshore drilling 
sites along the Atlantic coast.
  I hope we go further. Quite frankly, I hope we go further and say we 
should not be doing any new drilling anywhere in this country until we 
find out what went wrong so that we have corrected that. I am talking 
about offshore drilling. We should at least be able to correct what was 
the mistake with regard to BP Oil and the Deepwater Horizon rig. But at 
a minimum, these areas along the Atlantic coast where we currently 
don't drill should be off limits until we have completed the full 
review. That is the purpose of my amendment. I hope the chairman and 
ranking member will give me an opportunity to offer this amendment. I 
have heard from the Parliamentarian's Office that it would not be 
subject to a Rule XVI point of order and I believe it is germane. I 
believe we have a responsibility to act on this issue on this 
supplemental appropriations bill, because this truly is an urgent issue 
that has become much more urgent as a result of the spill in the gulf.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CARDIN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. For clarification, I know he expressed his sentiment that 
he wishes to stop all drilling offshore. But for the purpose of this 
amendment, it is confined to two areas, and it is only until such time 
as the investigations underway are completed; is that correct?
  Mr. CARDIN. This amendment deals with the three Atlantic Planning 
Areas (North, Mid, and South) and the Straits of Florida Planning Area 
only, and it only becomes operational as long as this supplemental 
appropriations bill is in effect--through the end of the current fiscal 
year.
  Mr. INHOFE. It is a 1-year moratorium. It is not tied to the 
investigation?
  Mr. CARDIN. No, it is not tied to the investigation.
  With that, I yield the floor.

[[Page 9035]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Let me make a couple comments about the comments of my 
friend from Maryland concerning the opportunities we might have to 
exploit our resources in the United States. I hear quite often people 
say that we only have 3 percent of the world's reserves. The only 
reason that figure is so low is because we can't go ahead and go after 
and define our recoverable reserves. CRS came out about 2 months ago 
with a report that we are No. 1 in the world in recoverable reserves of 
gas, oil, and coal. We have done a study, not a part of any formal 
study, but to determine where we would be if we, like every other 
country in the world, would exploit our own resources, where we would 
be in terms of our dependency on the Middle East for the ability to 
provide the energy we need. In a short period, just on this North 
American continent, Mexico, Canada, and ourselves, if we would lift all 
restrictions we currently have, we would be able to be independent of 
the Middle East.
  A lot of people who are concerned about the national security 
ramifications of our dependency on the Middle East are concerned about 
the Middle East. They are not concerned about Canada or Mexico. They 
are not concerned about the North American continent.
  For those people who don't want to drill offshore, certainly now is 
the time to stand up and say: Look what happened down here, a horrible 
disaster. But those people who have never wanted, at least in the 20 
years I have been here, to drill offshore or even in some of the other 
areas that are now off limits are people who don't think fossil fuels 
have a place in our energy mix. Quite frankly, I am glad President 
Obama has changed his position and is now recognizing that fossil 
fuels, more clean coal technology and therefore more coal, more gas, 
more oil is something he would support. It is nice to talk about 
renewables. It is wonderful. We have more windmills in Oklahoma than 
any State right now. But until technology gets to the point where we 
can efficiently produce energy from renewables, we still have to run 
this machine called America. We can't do it without fossil fuels.
  I am a little bit prejudiced. I come from Oklahoma. We are one of the 
largest producing States. Ours are mostly marginal wells, shallow 
wells. They are not the giant ones. That is the reason I have been on 
the floor several times objecting to the Menendez limits or caps they 
are talking about putting on something that would be unrealistic, that 
would shut down any opportunities for independents and confine all 
offshore drilling to the five majors plus the NOCs. That is the 
national oil companies, mostly talking about China.
  I am concerned about that. I know right now we would be in a position 
to do something, and we could become energy sufficient in the North 
American continent within 5 years, if we would exploit our own energy 
resources.


                           Amendment No. 4218

  That is not the reason I am here this afternoon. I just happened to 
come in. I wish to comment on amendment No. 4218 by Senator Collins. 
She was here a little while ago. I had an amendment that would do 
essentially the same thing. It was the Inhofe-Collins amendment. This 
is the Collins-Inhofe amendment. It takes a slightly different 
approach. I support both amendments, although I am withdrawing mine in 
her favor.
  This is the problem we have. On April 22, the EPA came out with a 
rule that made the statement that in the event you disturb any 6 square 
feet of a building structure that is older than 1978, then you have to 
have a permit from the EPA to become certified to work on such a 
building. If you don't do it, there is a penalty provision of some 
$37,500 a day. Realistically, we know they would not fine somebody 
$37,500 a day. But unfortunately, a lot of the contractors who do that 
kind of work are individuals who don't know that is nothing but a bluff 
to keep people from doing things. We very much want to participate in 
this dialog.
  I think there may be a procedural problem that someone is whispering 
about here; is that correct? OK, I am sorry. I forgot to ask to be 
considered as in morning business. I ask unanimous consent at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. This is a problem. I used to be in this business on some 
scale. The smaller contractors are the ones who do the renovation 
business. That means if they try to go out there and even replace one 
window, you can't replace the window without disturbing 6 square feet. 
Therefore, you would come under the provisions of this new rule, and 
you would be subjecting yourself to a fine of $37,500.
  So my bill that would have resolved the problem was not quite as good 
as the Collins bill, but it would have merely said that until such time 
as there are adequate numbers of people who are certified to do this 
work, we would not enforce the law.
  Well, the problem we are having right now is--and I have a list of 
the different States--in my State of Oklahoma, there is only one 
certified instructor. We have all these people wanting to take the 
course but they cannot get in, and they cannot do the work because of 
the heavy fine provisions.
  So what Senator Collins has done in her amendment is say that the 
penalty provision--the $37,500 a day--would be waived until September 
30. That would allow the EPA to get certified instructors into all the 
States so the people who want to become certified can become 
certified--in the meantime, not miss this summer's construction season. 
It is a very simple thing. I can assure you, this is a huge jobs bill 
because right now these people are not working. We are talking about 
thousands and thousands, in just my State of Oklahoma, of 
subcontractors who do this kind of work.
  I strongly support the Collins-Inhofe amendment No. 4318. It is a 
jobs bill. It is a bill of fairness.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, for clarification, I knew people were 
walking around talking. I apologize to Senator Cardin. I have no 
objection to him offering his amendment. I would say, I was wanting to 
get clarification on the amendment so I would know how I wanted to 
vote. That is all.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Financial Regulatory Reform

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, we are about to go to a conference on the 
financial reform bill for Wall Street reform. I want to spend a few 
minutes to talk about some of the provisions that I think are extremely 
important to survive in conference.
  What brought my attention to speak today is what is going on in 
Europe right now. You will hear people talk about this bill, and they 
will say: Well, there is no problem anymore. We have straightened out 
the mortgage problem. This all happened. Some kind of a typhoon came 
through here and wrecked the housing business. If we get that 
straightened out, we can move right on.
  I do not see it that way. I do not look at it as some kind of natural 
disaster. Clearly, the housing bubble was a big part of it, but there 
were still systemic problems in our financial system which have been 
around for quite a while. If

[[Page 9036]]

you go back and look at the 1929 Depression, in 1933, the Senate of the 
United States and the House and the President got together and we made 
rules and we made laws to correct it so it would never happen again. We 
passed a bill such as Glass-Steagall which basically said if you want 
to be a commercial bank, that is fine. But if you want to be a 
commercial bank, you cannot be an investment bank. We put in the uptick 
rule on short selling. We put in margin requirements. We created the 
FDIC. The Congress of the United States legislated because it was such 
a serious problem.
  For 50, 60 years we did not have a major problem. We had problems, 
but not major problems. Think about before 1929. The 19th century was 
full of bank panics. What happened? Why did we go through 50 or 60 
years without a problem?
  I think when you look at it, you have to say we made some major 
mistakes during the late 1990s and into the 2000s in the way we carried 
on our business in the financial market. One by one, we stripped away 
these protections. It culminated in 1999 with the Graham-Leach-Bliley 
Act, which did away with Glass-Steagall. We allowed commercial banks to 
get into all kinds of businesses, all kinds of risky businesses. We 
allowed them to get into derivatives. Our regulators went home and 
said: Hey, look, we didn't need regulation. Let the free market work it 
out. Alan Greenspan and others were saying: Let the market work it out.
  This was not just about housing. Housing is what set it off, but what 
really set it off was we basically said, we do not need any regulators. 
We decided to do play football, and we said: Do you know what. Those 
referees on our football field keep blowing the whistle. How can we 
keep playing when we have the referees blowing the whistle all the 
time, closing things down? Let's get these referees off the field and 
let the people play. We all know what happens in football, and we all 
saw what happened here.
  What concerns me the most is--I think we have done some good things 
to deal with the housing market and eliminating the housing bubble--
what we see happening in Europe should send a real chill through the 
spine of everyone in this body. We have seen the EU and the IMF 
scramble to put together an almost $1 trillion emergency package to 
forestall a full-blown series of sovereign debt crises in one country 
after another. Sound familiar? Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, AIG, and 
on. Greece, Spain, Portugal. Sound familiar? We see what is happening 
there.
  German and French banks alone have more than $900 billion in exposure 
to Greece and other vulnerable Euro countries, including Ireland, 
Portugal, and Spain. Meanwhile, our top five banks have an estimated 
$2.5 trillion in exposures to Europe.
  On the front page of today's Wall Street Journal there is an article 
on how European banks are saddled with higher funding costs because of 
skepticism on whether the EU-IMF bailout plan will work.
  I am a person who believes in the market. Look at what the market is 
saying. The market is saying: You are going to have to pay a higher 
funding cost. Do you know why? Because we are at risk. That is a sign. 
It is not for people to sit around. We are at risk. Just like right 
now, our major banks borrow at lower rates than every other bank in 
America because people believe 75 basis points or 80 basis points--
because people believe the market sends a clear message that they think 
those banks are still too big to fail. So this is an example of what is 
going on in Europe and why we must make sure the bill that comes out of 
conference is strong and why we must make sure we have done away with 
too big to fail.
  There are five issues I wish to talk about on the floor and go over 
them. No. 1 is Merkley-Levin. People on the floor know that is a good 
amendment, the President of the United States. The Volcker rule: Folks 
have come to this floor and said the Volcker rule is already in this 
bill. Well, this bill says the Rocker rule is in here. The Volcker 
rule, as you will remember, says that commercial banks, banks, should 
not be involved in proprietary trading.
  If you want to be a commercial bank, be a commercial bank. That is 
what we set up when we set up Glass-Steagall. We said be a commercial 
bank. That is going to be a low-risk business. You may not get as high 
a return if that is what you want to do, but do not get into these 
risky things, do not get into this investment banking. Basically, what 
this says is, do not get into the proprietary trading because 
proprietary trading can be risky. If you want to be a commercial bank, 
be a commercial bank. So what the present bill says is that it supports 
the Volcker rule. It says you can do proprietary trading, but then it 
sends it to the regulators, and says to the regulators, you can modify 
this.
  First of all, what is the Congress of the United States doing saying 
to regulators, you can modify this? The buck stops here with us. We 
should lay down what the rules are. That is what we did in 1929. We 
passed laws. We made what the laws were. We do not turn them over to 
regulators. By the way, many of these regulators--not the people but 
the people who were in those positions--were the reason why we got to 
where we are today, because they are the ones who pulled the referees 
off the field.
  So one of the things we should look at clearly coming out of this 
conference is a strong Volcker rule, not one that can be modified by 
the regulators, and that is basically the Merkley-Levin amendment.
  The second thing is the provision by Senator Lincoln, the provision 
on swaps dealers. The conference report should include Senator 
Lincoln's provision to prohibit banks with swap dealers from receiving 
emergency Federal loans. Again, if you want to be a bank, be a bank. Do 
not get into these high-risk businesses.
  By forcing megabanks to spin off their swap dealer into an affiliate 
or separate company, section 716 of the Senate bill would help restore 
the wall between the government-guaranteed part--the FDIC-insured 
part--of the financial system and those financial institutions, 
entities, that remain free to take on greater risk.
  If you want to have risk, become an investment bank. Go into risky 
business. Do not do that with commercial banks. Do not be luring our 
commercial banks with up to, potentially, $2.5 trillion in exposure to 
Europe. How many derivatives? How much are they still in derivatives? 
That is what this is about. Let's get them out of the risky business of 
derivatives.
  Allowing massive derivatives dealers to be housed within banks 
creates a moral hazard. Forcing banks to spin off large derivatives 
dealers would end this moral hazard and force swaps dealers to 
adequately price and capitalize the risks associated with these 
activities. Again, commercial banks should be commercial banks. They 
should not be in high-risk businesses.
  Senator Collins' capital standards amendment. The conference report 
should include some form of the Collins amendment to ensure that bank 
holding companies and systemically significant nonbank financial 
institutions are subject to capital and leverage requirements as 
stringent as those that insured depository institutions face under 
existing prompt corrective action regulations. That just makes good 
sense. Set up the same regulations.
  This amendment would, therefore, raise the capital bar for our 
largest financial institutions, requiring them to hold more committed 
and reliable forms of capital, namely, common equity and retained 
earnings. This makes good sense.
  Representative Kanjorski's systemic risk amendment. The conference 
report should include Representative Kanjorski's amendment to require 
the council, following consultation with applicable prudential 
regulators, to take action against a financial institution that poses a 
``grave threat'' to U.S. financial stability. This just makes good 
sense.
  These actions might include the imposition of enhanced capital and 
other prudential standards, activity restrictions, and the sale of 
assets or business lines, among others. This is what the

[[Page 9037]]

regulators should be doing. Hence, this amendment gives regulators 
added tools and authority to impose strict standards and take 
preemptive actions against financial institutions that pose outsized 
risks to the overall system before a full-blown financial crisis 
occurs.
  We cannot do what we have done before. We cannot say: Oh, everything 
is going great, and then one day wake up with this incredible hangover. 
We cannot wait for a full-blown financial crisis. That is key. 
Resolution is one thing--how to resolve it once you get there--but we 
have to spend our time on prevention to make sure this never happens 
again, we never get to that point.
  Finally, Representative Speier's leverage amendment. The conference 
report should include Representative Speier's amendment to require the 
Federal Reserve to set a minimum leverage level of 15 to 1 on all 
systemically significant financial institutions. This is good financial 
practice.
  A statutory leverage limit of this kind will ensure a capital floor 
for our largest banks and help ensure that regulators do not miss the 
forest for the trees as they calibrate risk-based capital standards.
  These are five important pieces to the puzzle that we should include 
in this financial regulatory reform when it comes back from the 
conference. This is our way to assure that never again do millions of 
Americans find themselves out of work, millions of Americans find 
themselves without a house, and that American taxpayers never again--
never again--will have to bail out the large banks.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4191

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may offer amendment No. 4191.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4191.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for leasing activities in 
             certain areas of the outer Continental Shelf)

       On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 30__.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used by the Secretary of the Interior for the 
     conduct of offshore preleasing, leasing, and related 
     activities in the North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South 
     Atlantic, and Straits of Florida Planning Areas of the outer 
     Continental Shelf described in the memorandum entitled 
     ``Memorandum on Withdrawal of Certain Areas of the United 
     States Outer Continental Shelf from Leasing Disposition'', 34 
     Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 1111, dated June 12, 1998.

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first, I thank the chairman and ranking 
member for allowing me the opportunity to offer this amendment. It 
imposes a moratorium on offshore drilling along the Atlantic coast and 
the Straits of Florida. I have already talked about the amendment. I 
thank my colleagues for allowing it to be introduced.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, in a moment, I am going to ask for the 
regular order with respect to the Cornyn amendment for the purpose of 
offering a second-degree amendment to the Cornyn amendment with one 
additional request for appropriations--namely, about $200 million for 
some court personnel and related facilities to accommodate taking 
illegal immigrants who have violated the law by coming into the country 
illegally and, after processing through the court system with lawyers 
available, incarcerating those people for 2 weeks or, if it is multiple 
offenses coming into the country illegally, for 30 days in most cases.
  Where this has been done on the border, illegal immigration has 
already come to a stop because going to jail represents a real 
deterrent. To illustrate the difference between two sectors of the 
border in Arizona, we can see how we could really make a difference for 
a relatively small amount of money in controlling the border. It can be 
done.
  Arizona is divided into two halves. The eastern half is the Tucson 
sector; the western half, going into California for about 30 or 40 
miles, is the Yuma sector. Both have had huge problems with illegal 
immigration.
  In the last 5 years, illegal immigration in the Yuma sector has been 
cut by 94 percent. That is huge. There is one other sector on the 
border somewhat similar, the Del Rio, TX, sector, where this Operation 
Streamline is also in effect. It has been cut dramatically there as 
well.
  In the other Arizona sector, Tucson, where Operation Streamline has 
not been fully implemented, there are still about a quarter of a 
million people per year crossing the border who are apprehended. Nobody 
knows how many get across and are not apprehended. Estimates range from 
three to four to five times as many. So in all likelihood, there are 
about 1 million people crossing the border every year in the Tucson 
sector, about a quarter of whom are apprehended. We need to provide a 
deterrent for those people so they realize they should not cross.
  About 17 percent of the people who are apprehended when they try to 
cross illegally we find are criminals in the United States. They have 
criminal records in the United States or are wanted for crimes here. 
Obviously, those people do not want to be incarcerated when they are 
caught. The remainder, the 83 percent, want to come here to work. They 
just want jobs. But they cannot be providing for their families back in 
Mexico, El Salvador, or wherever they might be from if they are in 
jail.
  The Yuma sector experience has found that as a result, if they know 
for a certainty that they are going to go to jail if they are caught, 
they stop trying because it is simply not worth it to them, and they go 
someplace else on the border to try to come across. The number in Yuma 
is staggering. Five years ago, we were apprehending 118,500 immigrants. 
So far this year, it is about 5,000.
  I was there about 6 weeks ago. I talked with the head of the Border 
Patrol.
  I said: What is it like just today?
  He said: There is no activity.
  I said: There has to be some.
  He said: No. Most days, nobody tries to cross.
  I said: That is pretty remarkable. Why?
  He said: Three factors. We have 11 miles of double fencing in the 
Yuma urban area, we have enough Border Patrol, and we have Operation 
Streamline.
  There are some other assets. They have cameras. There are lights. The 
Marine Corps, which helps in the far eastern part of this sector near 
the Barry Goldwater gunnery range, a place where jet airplanes fly and 
drop bombs for practice, takes care of that. They have had pretty good 
luck there. But there are no pedestrian fences. It is all vehicle 
barriers in that area. And there is some radar out there.
  The bottom line is, with a combination of these things, what they 
have found is they can secure the border. It is relatively 
inexpensive--I say ``relatively.'' You do have to have a defense 
lawyer, a prosecuting lawyer, a court clerk, a judge, a courtroom, and 
then

[[Page 9038]]

you have to lease the jail space. Those things can be done.
  What we are hoping is that we can begin to apply this same concept to 
other sectors of the border and that in a relatively short period of 
time, we can demonstrate that we can secure the border. When we do 
that, not only will we have done what we are supposed to do as the 
people who are in charge of enforcing the law, but then I think people 
will have a much more open mind to consider other issues, such as 
elements of comprehensive immigration reform. As I have said, we do not 
need comprehensive reform to secure the border, but we do need to 
secure the border to get comprehensive immigration reform. And this is 
a good-faith effort to do it.
  We have provided the funding. I will read it. It is very brief. This 
is an additional amount to fully fund--it is called multiagency law 
enforcement initiatives; ``multi'' because it is both the Department of 
Homeland Security and Department of Justice.
  These are already authorized under title II of the public law, but 
this would be $200 million, $155 million available for the Department 
of Justice and the remainder, $45 million, available for the judiciary. 
That is for courthouse renovation, administrative support, including 
hiring additional judges. The first part is hiring additional deputy 
U.S. marshals, constructing or leasing temporary detention space, and 
related needs of the Department of Homeland Security or Attorney 
General.
  At this time let me ask unanimous consent to return to regular order 
for the Cornyn amendment, if that is the appropriate procedure for 
offering my amendment as a second-degree thereto.


                           Amendment No. 4202

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.


                Amendment No. 4228 to Amendment No. 4202

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I then send to the desk amendment No. 4228. 
This is a Kyl-McCain amendment that would be offered as a second-degree 
amendment to the Cornyn amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 4228 to amendment No. 
     4202.

  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent further reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To appropriate $200,000,000 for a law enforcement initiative 
 to address illegal crossings of the Southwest border, with an offset)

       At the end of the amendment, add the following:
       (j) Operation Streamline.--For an additional amount to 
     fully fund multi-agency law enforcement initiatives that 
     address illegal crossings of the Southwest border, including 
     those in the Tucson Sector, as authorized under title II of 
     Division B and title III of Division C of Public Law 111-117, 
     $200,000,000, of which--
       (1) $155,000,000 shall be available for the Department of 
     Justice for--
       (A) hiring additional Deputy United States Marshals;
       (B) constructing additional permanent and temporary 
     detention space; and
       (C) established and other related needs of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security and the Attorney General; and
       (2) $45,000,000 shall be available for the Judiciary for--
       (A) courthouse renovation;
       (B) administrative support, including hiring additional 
     clerks for each District to process additional criminal 
     cases; and
       (C) hiring additional judges.
       (k) Offsetting Rescission.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 5 of the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5), 
     $200 million of the amounts appropriated or made available 
     under Division A of such Act that remain unobligated as of 
     the date of the enactment of this Act are hereby rescinded.

  Mr. KYL. I see another colleague here wishing to speak. I have 
already explained the amendment, but I will summarize it by saying we 
need to control the border. I believe it can be done. The Yuma sector 
represents a good example of how it can be done.
  I understand the President will be requesting some additional funding 
for some additional personnel and so on. The Cornyn amendment would 
provide funding specifically for some of the personnel who are needed 
on the border and some of the related activity, both Federal and State. 
Our second-degree amendment, offered for Senator McCain and myself, 
would simply add the funding necessary to implement the Operation 
Streamline portion of this that would provide the deterrent so people 
would not want to cross the border illegally because if they got 
caught, there would be a virtual certainty they would be incarcerated 
for a relatively short period of time but more, obviously, than any of 
them want to spend in jail.
  For this deterrent to work we need this additional funding. I hope 
when we have an opportunity to vote my colleagues will ask any 
questions. I am willing to discuss this on the Senate floor or 
privately if they like. There is a lot of other information we can 
provide that describes this. I think it is a reasonable approach and 
certainly on this supplemental appropriation legislation--which helps 
to fund the military needs of our country, even the National Guard if 
that is to be funded. This is a complement to that which I think is 
totally appropriate in this particular legislation.
  I appreciate my colleagues' indulgence and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                     In Praise of Steve Shackleton

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I rise once again to recognize one of 
our Nation's great Federal employees.
  This weekend, Americans will be observing Memorial Day, which also 
marks the unofficial start of summer. It is a tradition for families to 
gather at picnics and spend time together outdoors. Many will be 
visiting parks, trails, and historical sites administered by the 
National Park Service.
  Every year, when Americans travel to our national parks--as many will 
do this weekend they often take for granted the outstanding work 
performed by National Park Service rangers.
  The men and women who protect our National Park System and watch over 
the safety of its visitors come from diverse backgrounds, yet they 
share a dedication to public service and an abiding love for the land 
we all so cherish.
  The parks they administer on our behalf showcase the diversity of our 
country's splendid natural geography. From Yellowstone to the 
Shenandoah, from the gates of the Arctic to the Great Smoky Mountains, 
these parks provide a refuge for wildlife and preserve our natural and 
cultural heritage.
  The experience of visiting these parks is often awe-inspiring. Surely 
all who have ever stood at the rim of the Grand Canyon or at the foot 
of a giant California Redwood felt their majesty and the stirrings of 
tranquility they inspire.
  These parks, trails, and historic sites are an excellent place to 
take children, where they can learn firsthand about nature and the 
importance of conservation.
  This is why I have been working with Senator Carper to establish the 
first State national historical park in Delaware, which would preserve 
sites important to our State's colonial history. Currently, Delaware is 
the only State without a national park.
  Indeed, our great national parks, with their pristine natural beauty 
and vast expanses of solitude, have stirred their souls of millions.
  We have so much to learn from these parks, and so much to experience. 
True remain the words from Shakespeare, who wrote of the wilderness 
that in it we may ``find tongues in trees, books in running brooks, 
sermons in stones, and good in every thing.''
  Today, as my great Federal employee of the week, I have chosen to 
honor one of the dedicated rangers who keep visitors to our national 
parks safe, informed, and able to experience the parks' wonders.
  Steve Shackleton has been a national park ranger for over a quarter-
century. He began his service in the 1980s at the Grand Teton National 
Park in Wyoming, where he worked in the areas of search and rescue, 
emergency medicine, and law enforcement. During that

[[Page 9039]]

time, he spent six summers fighting fires in California's Sierra 
National Forest.
  Steve spent 14 years in Hawaii and Alaska working on resource 
protection management. He holds bachelor's and master's of science 
degrees in criminology from California State University in Fresno and a 
master's of public administration from the University of Alaska, 
Anchorage.
  In the late 1990s, Steve came to Washington, where he spent 3 years 
working in the National Park Service's legislative office and 
undertaking a fellowship right here in the U.S. Senate. Afterward, 
Steve became the superintendent of the Pinnacles National Monument in 
California's central coast region.
  From 2004-2005, he participated in the OPM's Federal Senior Executive 
Candidate Development Program, which included study at Harvard's 
Kennedy School of Government and Stanford's Graduate School of 
Business.
  For the last 7 years, Steve served as the chief ranger at Yosemite 
National Park. In that role, he directed the park's programs in law 
enforcement, wilderness management, fire prevention, search and rescue, 
and remote medicine.
  This February, Steve was asked to return to Washington, where he now 
serves as the National Park Service's Associate Director for Visitors 
and Resource Protection.
  Steve's love of nature and America's natural heritage can be traced 
to his father, Lee Shackleton, who himself had a long career as a park 
ranger. Steve and his wife, Jane, have passed along this tradition of 
caring for nature to their daughter, Dana, who is studying veterinary 
medicine at the University of California, Davis.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the great work of 
Steve Shackleton and all of America's national park rangers. This 
summer, they will continue to watch over the safety of visitors and 
serve as their guides to the splendor of our national parks.
  The men and women of the National Park Service are all truly great 
Federal employees.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) Without objection, it 
is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4232

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few minutes talking 
about the bill before us and also call up two amendments. I will call 
up the amendments first and get that out of the way.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and 
that amendment No. 4232 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 4232.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To pay for the costs of supplemental spending by reducing 
  Congress' own budget and disposing of unneeded Federal property and 
                       uncommitted Federal funds)

       At the end of the bill, add the following:

       TITLE IV--PAYMENT OF COSTS OF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 4001. REDUCING BUDGETS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

       Of the funds made available under Public Law 111-68 for the 
     legislative branch, $100,000,000 in unobligated balances are 
     permanently rescinded: Provided, That the rescissions made by 
     the section shall not apply to funds made available to the 
     Capitol Police.

     SEC. 4002. DISCLOSING COST OF CONGRESSIONAL BORROWING AND 
                   SPENDING.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Senate shall post 
     prominently on the front page of the public website of the 
     Senate (http://www.senate.gov/) the following information:
       (1) The total amount of discretionary and direct spending 
     passed by the Senate that has not been paid for, including 
     emergency designated spending or spending otherwise exempted 
     from PAYGO requirements.
       (2) The total amount of net spending authorized in 
     legislation passed by the Senate, as scored by CBO.
       (3) The number of new government programs created in 
     legislation passed by the Senate.
       (4) The totals for paragraphs (1) through (3) as passed by 
     both Houses of Congress and signed into law by the President.
       (b) Display.--The information tallies required by 
     subsection (a) shall be itemized by bill and date, updated 
     weekly, and archived by calendar year.
       (c) Effective Date.--The PAYGO tally required by subsection 
     (a)(1) shall begin with the date of enactment of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 and the authorization 
     tally required by subsection (a)(2) shall apply to all 
     legislation passed beginning January 1, 2010.

     SEC. 4003. DISPOSING OF UNNEEDED AND UNUSED GOVERNMENT 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of subtitle I of title 40, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

         ``SUBCHAPTER VII--EXPEDITED DISPOSAL OF REAL PROPERTY

     ``Sec. 621. Definitions

       ``In this subchapter:
       ``(1) Director.--The term `Director' means the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget.
       ``(2) Expedited disposal of a real property.--The term 
     `expedited disposal of a real property' means a demolition of 
     real property or a sale of real property for cash that is 
     conducted under the requirements of section 545.
       ``(3) Landholding agency.--The term `landholding agency' 
     means a landholding agency as defined under section 501(i)(3) 
     of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     11411(i)(3)).
       ``(4) Real property.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `real property' means--
       ``(i) a parcel of real property under the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Federal Government that is--

       ``(I) excess;
       ``(II) surplus;
       ``(III) underperforming; or
       ``(IV) otherwise not meeting the needs of the Federal 
     Government, as determined by the Director; and

       ``(ii) a building or other structure located on real 
     property described under clause (i).
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `real property' excludes any 
     parcel of real property or building or other structure 
     located on such real property that is to be closed or 
     realigned under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 
     of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 
     U.S.C. 2687 note).

     ``Sec. 622. Disposal program

       ``(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
     shall dispose of by sale or auction not less than 
     $15,000,000,000 worth of real property that is not meeting 
     Federal Government from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015.
       ``(b) Agencies shall recommend candidate disposition real 
     properties to the Director for participation in the pilot 
     program established under section 622.
       ``(c) The Director, with the concurrence of the head of the 
     executive agency concerned and consistent with the criteria 
     established in this subchapter, may then select such 
     candidate real properties for participation in the program 
     and notify the recommending agency accordingly.
       ``(d) The Director shall ensure that all real properties 
     selected for disposition under this section are listed on a 
     website that shall--
       ``(1) be updated routinely; and
       ``(2) include the functionality to allow members of the 
     public, at their option, to receive such updates through 
     electronic mail.
       ``(e) The Director may transfer real property identified in 
     the enactment of this section to the Department of Housing 
     and Urban Development if the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development has determined such properties are suitable for 
     use to assist the homeless.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 5 of subtitle I of title 40, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 611 the following:

          ``subchapter vii--expedited disposal of real property

``Sec. 621. Definitions.
``Sec. 622. Disposal program.''.

     SEC. 4004. AUCTIONING AND SELLING OF UNUSED AND UNNEEDED 
                   EQUIPMENT.

       (a) Notwithstanding section 1033 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act of 1997 or any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Defense shall auction or sell unused, 
     unnecessary, or surplus supplies and equipment without 
     providing preference to State or local governments.
       (b) The Secretary may make exceptions to the sale or 
     auction of such equipment for transfers of excess military 
     property to state and local law enforcement agencies related

[[Page 9040]]

     to counter-drug efforts, counter-terrorism activities, or 
     other efforts determined to be related to national defense or 
     homeland security. The Secretary of Defense may sell such 
     equipment to State and local agencies at fair market value.

     SEC. 4005. RESCINDING UNSPENT AND UNCOMMITTED FEDERAL FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, of all available uncommitted unobligated Federal funds, 
     $80,000,000,000 in appropriated discretionary unexpired funds 
     are rescinded.
       (b) Implementation.--Not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget shall--
       (1) identify the accounts and amounts rescinded to 
     implement subsection (a); and
       (2) submit a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and 
     Congress of the accounts and amounts identified under 
     paragraph (1) for rescission.
       (c) Exception.--This section shall not apply to the 
     unobligated Federal funds of the Department of Defense or the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs.


                           Amendment No. 4231

  (Purpose: To pay for the costs of supplemental spending by reducing 
   waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending within the Federal 
                              Government)

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 4231 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for himself and Mr. 
     McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 4231.

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. COBURN. We have before us almost a $60 billion emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill. This is about the eighth supplemental 
bill we have discussed since I have been in the Senate--some 
appropriate, some not.
  But the thing that I think the American people need to know, given 
the fact that this week our debt will be $13 trillion--this week--and 
that does not count what we owe trust funds inside the government, 
account money we have stolen from Social Security that will have to be 
paid back; it does not count money that has been taken from the oil 
recovery fund that will have to be paid back; it does not count the 
money from the inland waterway trust fund and all of these other trust 
funds. That is $13 trillion outside of what we have borrowed from 
ourselves--$13 trillion.
  So we have before us a bill that is an emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill, and I thought it would be interesting for the 
American people to see what the rules of the Senate say about what is 
an ``emergency'' because nobody can say the war is an emergency. Since 
September 11, 2001, there has been no emergency other than the fact 
that we knew we were going to war. And the fact is, we have known that 
at least for the last 5 or 6 years. Nobody can say that.
  But when you look at the definition we are supposed to follow--our 
own rules--about emergency designations, there are five 
characteristics, and those five characteristics are, one, it is 
necessary, it is essential, and it is vital. Well, some of this bill is 
necessary, some of it is essential, and some of it is vital--not all of 
it is by any means.
  No. 2: Sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over 
time. Well, this bill certainly does not meet that requirement, except 
for a very small section of it.
  An urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action. 
There is no immediate action here on anything, except maybe the FEMA 
portion for both the upper Northeast and the flooding and Nashville, 
TN, and its flooding. But we have $900 million sitting in FEMA right 
now that has not been spent that we can start spending, so we don't 
have to pass $5 billion right now.
  Unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated. Well, the war certainly 
wasn't unforeseen, it certainly wasn't unpredictable, and it certainly 
wasn't unanticipated. We have known it. So it certainly doesn't meet 
that definition.
  It is not permanent, it is not temporary in nature.
  So we have what we are supposed to be following, and I would portend 
that 98 percent of this bill doesn't meet the requirements of being an 
emergency designation. Yet why are we calling it an emergency 
designation? There is one real reason for that; that is, we don't have 
to confine it in with the total amount we are authorized to spend. This 
is outside of what we are going to spend. It is $60 billion that we are 
going to borrow. We are going to borrow it. We are going to borrow it 
from the children of the people who are in Afghanistan and Iraq who are 
fighting this war. The people in this body aren't going to pay it back. 
We are going to kiss it goodbye and we are going to say: Here is your 
present, grandchildren. Here is a present for the kids of the 
warfighter who is over there today, who is sacrificing, his family is 
sacrificing, her family is sacrificing. But we are going to borrow it 
from them.
  And it is not that we haven't done it. We made a big fanfare about 
that we were going to institute pay-go; that we were not going to 
violate pay-go; that pay-go was going to force discipline on us. So we 
passed a statute, and the President had a big signing--except here is 
what has happened since we have signed it.
  It was signed into law on February 12.
  On February 24, we violated pay-go. We said the rule doesn't apply; 
we have a need; we are going to spend $46 billion. So we spent $46 
billion outside of the budget. We borrowed $46 billion. Oops.
  March 2. We don't have the courage to eliminate lower priority parts 
of the government. We borrowed another $10 billion.
  All of a sudden, on March 3, then we borrowed $99 billion. Pay-go 
didn't count. We just said: We waive pay-go. Sixty votes of the Senate. 
We have no fiscal discipline--$99 billion.
  April 14. We borrowed $18 billion. Did it again.
  So if you add those up--and that doesn't count the last one we did. I 
will bring a more accurate chart tomorrow when I talk about the rest of 
these amendments. But so far, we have borrowed $173 billion, when we 
said we are not going to borrow money anymore because we are going to 
have pay-go that says that will force the discipline on us to put lower 
priorities off the spending line, to put higher priorities on.
  So just since February 12--it is now late May--we have borrowed $173 
billion. We are going to add $60 billion here, and we have a tax 
extender package that is coming with another $230 billion. That is $563 
billion since February 12 that we are going to spend money--I 
understand the majority leader is on the floor. Would you like time, 
Mr. Leader?
  Mr. REID. I appreciate my friend yielding. I am here. Why don't you 
proceed, and when I get the necessary--
  Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield to the leader.
  Mr. REID. Thank you very much.
  Mr. COBURN. So $\1/2\ trillion since we famously passed pay-go, and 
we are going to waive it six times, and when we haven't waived it, we 
have declared something an ``emergency'' so we do not have pay-go law 
applying. The budget rules go out the window because it is an 
emergency--except we do not meet the criteria for emergencies by our 
own definition.
  So what is this all about? Is it about playing a shell game with the 
American people, to say we are going to do one thing and then turn 
around and, before July 1, in 5 months--less than 5 months--we are 
going to borrow another $\1/2\ trillion after we tell the American 
people: Oh, no, we are not going to do that anymore.
  We have an emergency. There is no question this country has an 
emergency. Do you know what it is? It is a $13 trillion debt we have 
today that is going to be $23 trillion 8 years from now. We have a debt 
that is going to suppress our GDP by 1\1/2\ to 2 percent in what we 
could normally grow because the government's debt is such a burgeoning 
hangover on the capital markets. Yet we don't have the ability to

[[Page 9041]]

do what we promised the American people we would do.
  You know, I feel as if I ought to read the signing statement of 
President Obama when he signed pay-go and the statements of all of my 
colleagues that said: This is the answer. Except that will not do any 
good. The only answer is for the American people to hold us 
accountable. I obviously can't. For 5\1/2\ years, I have been trying to 
tamp down spending, to have us make a position that we are going to go 
to the lowest priority, cut the lowest priority out so we can fund the 
highest priority, and we have refused to do that.
  So does it have real consequences, what we are doing today? There is 
no question this bill is going to pass. There are votes in this body to 
pass and add another $60 billion. What are the consequences? Well, the 
consequences come about to our children.
  You have seen this sign before. This is Madeline. This photo was shot 
of Madeline as she walked around Capitol Hill. I actually had a visit 
with her and her parents. When we first put this up here, she was only 
$38,000 in debt. That was less than 6 months ago. Less than 6 months 
ago, she only owed $38,000--per man, woman, and child in this country. 
She is at $42,000 now. When we finish what we do before July 1, she 
will be close to $50,000--per person in this country. If you 
extrapolate what the budgets are going to be over the next 8 years, she 
is going to be close to $200,000 in debt. And that does not count the 
unfunded liability.
  When this little lady is 28 years old, her responsibility, both in 
terms of debt and unfunded liability, will be $1,113,000. We never 
think about it in terms of young lives and how we are impacting them. 
We can always rationalize away the ability to make hard choices. That 
is what we are doing. Does anybody in this body not think we couldn't 
squeeze $60 billion out of $3 trillion? Could we not do that? Are there 
things less important than fighting the war? Are there things that are 
more important about our future and less important about irritating 
some special interest group because their program did not get funded? 
Which is it? I vote with the kids and the grandkids. They supposedly 
have a voice, except we routinely ignore it. That is what we are doing 
with this bill.
  I am not saying we should not fund the war. I am not saying we should 
not create the money for FEMA for the projects we need. I am not even 
saying we should not help Haiti where we can. What I am saying is that 
we ought to pay for it by making hard choices that every family right 
now is making. They are having to make choices between what is an 
absolute must and everything else that is not. They don't have the 
luxury of an unlimited debt service because their credit card company 
has already said: You can't have any more. Their bank has already said: 
No, you can't borrow any more. Their house and its equity has been 
maxed out. They don't have any other choices. So they make the hard 
choices.
  We are kidding ourselves if we think we have another choice. We don't 
have another choice. We are just delaying the time at which we make the 
choice. The pain associated with delay is going to be twice as great as 
the pain of doing it now.
  John McCain and I are offering two amendments. The whole purpose of 
the amendments is to give the body a couple of choices on how to pay 
for this. It is not easy, it is not fun. But is it necessary? Is it 
necessary for the health of our Nation? Is it necessary that we start 
acting in the way the American people expect us to, which means we are 
going to get rid of the things that are not as important as the things 
in this bill?
  I understand that is novel because the Congress has only had one net 
rescission in the last 16 years. It occurred with the 1996 
appropriations bill where we actually cut total government spending in 
1996. We had the will to do it. The appropriators had the will to do 
it. But we don't have that will anymore. The environment we face as a 
country is three or four times more severe for our future than it was 
in 1996.
  So what is the disconnect? What is the disconnect that we would not 
make hard choices? I am not going to say my choices are the best 
choices; they are just my choices. But it ought to be rolled back to 
the appropriators that this bill should have never come to the floor 
unpaid for. They know more about spending than anybody in this body. 
They are more qualified to make the cuts. But they chose not to make 
the cuts in lower priority items to pay for this bill.
  What is the choice? The choice is to indenture our children and 
grandchildren. That is the choice we are making. When we choose not to 
do it, we are choosing proactively to indenture our children and 
grandchildren. We are better than that.
  What is so sacrosanct? Do you realize in 2 weeks in December we found 
640 instances of duplicate programs that had exactly the same goals 
with multiple sets, 70 programs for food and nutrition for hungry 
people. Why do we have 70 programs to help poor people get food? Nobody 
can rationally explain why. We just have it. The reason we have 70 is 
because we used to have 40. We didn't have any metrics on it so 
somebody thought we ought to have another program for feeding hungry 
people. So we put another program together. Then we funded it. But we 
didn't have any metrics on it. So then we did it again, and we continue 
to do it.
  There are 640 different instances just like that, 70 programs to feed 
the hungry across 6 different agencies--not just 1 but 6, none of them 
with metrics, none of them working to see if they actually work, no 
oversight hearings by the Appropriations Committee to see if they work 
or the authorizing committee to see if they work. We have 70.
  There are 105 to incentivize kids to go into math, engineering, 
science, and technology, 105 programs across 9 agencies. That is just 2 
examples out of the 640 sets of duplication we found.
  Where are we going to eliminate some of that? When are we going to 
accomplish what the American people are asking us to do? It is not 
about eliminating food for the hungry. It is not about eliminating 
incentives. It is about eliminating the management structure for 70 
programs or 105 programs so we can have one or two good ones, and we 
can have metrics on them.
  I yield to the majority leader.


                            Cloture Motions

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have two cloture motions at the desk. I 
ask that they be reported.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motions having been presented 
under rule XXII, the clerk will report the motions to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the committee-
     reported substitute amendment to H.R. 4899, an act making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster relief and 
     summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010.
         Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, John D. Rockefeller, IV, 
           Patty Murray, Debbie Stabenow, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Sherrod Brown, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Mark Begich, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jack Reed, Patrick J. Leahy, Carl 
           Levin, Amy Klobuchar, Kay R. Hagan, Roland W. Burris, 
           Charles E. Schumer.

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 4899, an act 
     making emergency supplemental appropriations for disaster 
     relief and summer jobs for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 2010.
         Harry Reid, Richard Durbin, John D. Rockefeller, IV, 
           Patty Murray, Debbie Stabenow, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Sherrod Brown, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Mark Begich, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Jack Reed, Patrick J. Leahy, Carl 
           Levin, Amy Klobuchar, Kay R. Hagan, Roland W. Burris, 
           Charles E. Schumer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. We now have cloture filed on a $60 billion bill. I don't 
know what the intentions of the majority leader are but the fact is, we 
are going to limit debate. We have been on this bill about a day or a 
day and a half, $60 billion. We are going to cut off debate. We are 
going to attempt to limit amendments and limit the debate. This is a 
debate this country ought to be

[[Page 9042]]

having. This is an opportunity for us to do what the American people 
want us to do.
  So 30 hours from now we will have a vote on cloture on this bill. We 
also have cloture to end debate filed as well. What does that mean? 
That means the American people are not going to get to hear everything 
that is in the bill, No. 1. That means there will be a very limited 
number of amendments that will be actually voted on.
  By rule, we are going to close off our responsibility to Madeline. We 
are going to say: Madeline, you don't count. We have to get out of 
here. Don't you know Memorial Day vacation is coming? So we don't want 
to be here. We have codels leaving Saturday morning. That has to be 
more important than saving the Republic so we don't end up like Greece.
  We are only about 4 or 5 years behind them. We are only 4 or 5 years 
behind Greece. We are going to see this tremendous money flow come into 
this country because people are worried about Europe. We are going to 
see it come in from Japan because people will be worried about Japan 
being able to pay their debts. We will feel all good and fuzzy for 
about 2 years. After they inflate their currency or debase it or 
default, the money is going to flow right back out. Guess who is going 
to be looking over the abyss. The United States of America. We will be 
at the same point. What is the problem? The problem is their spending 
as a percentage of their GDP creates an environment where they can't 
pay for their debt. That is where we are going to be.
  My first degree was in accounting. I had a business career for 9 
years before medical school. I can tell my colleagues, if we truly 
accounted for the liabilities of this government, including Fannie Mae 
and Freddie Mac--we refuse to recognize their liability--our debt would 
be far in excess of $13 trillion. So what we are going to do is say 
Senators' comfort is much more important than Madeline's future.
  Let's talk for a minute about what the word ``indentured'' means. 
That means you are under the control of somebody else. Your ability to 
have free choice becomes limited because you are indentured. Is there 
any wonder why we have trouble bringing hard core sanctions against 
Iran, when the Chinese own $900 billion of our debt and the Russians 
have $800 billion? Our debt affects our foreign policy. Our ability to 
support our military is jeopardized by the very fact that we are making 
a decision today to pay $33 billion for the war effort in Afghanistan 
by not paying for it. We are jeopardizing our long-term future.
  The other ironic thing in this bill, this body just passed a 
financial regulatory reform bill, but we created a commission called 
the Financial Inquiry Commission. In this bill we are appropriating on 
an emergency basis $1.8 million for that inquiry commission that is 
going to give us what went wrong and what we need to do about it in 
December. We have already figured out we don't need them; We passed a 
bill without that knowledge, without that look, without that in-depth 
analysis of what went wrong because we had to get it done. Yet we are 
going to continue to fund a Financial Inquiry Commission that we are 
not going to do anything with the results of, and we are going to call 
it an emergency.
  How ludicrous is that? The whole purpose of the Financial Inquiry 
Commission was to guide Congress in what to do. We have already ignored 
them. We have already decided what we are going to do. That bill is in 
conference. We are going to pass a financial regulatory reform bill 
ultimately that is devoid of the recommendations of that commission. 
But we are going to do the typical Washington thing. We are going to 
continue to fund the commission, even though we are not going to use 
its results. Why is that?
  What does just $1.8 million out of a $60 billion bill, what does that 
mean for her? Multiply that times thousands of times every year, the 
stuff that we are doing that isn't a priority. Nobody can agree it is 
still a priority that we ought to borrow $1.8 million to fund that 
commission. You can't argue that is still a priority because we have 
already made up our minds on financial regulation reform. But that 
happens thousands of times a year, billions and billions and billions 
of dollars.
  These two amendments are tough amendments. I am not deceiving myself 
to think that all of a sudden grown-ups are going to show up in the 
Senate. They are not. Let me tell my colleagues what they do. The first 
amendment will reduce our own budget. We gave ourselves a nice stellar 
raise, not salarywise but for our own budgets. We are going to reduce 
that budget for Members of Congress.
  We are going to disclose on the Senate Web site the cost of borrowing 
money and how many times we violate our own rules, pay-go. There should 
be nobody who voted for pay-go who votes against that because if it is 
good enough for us to use, it is good enough for the American people to 
see.
  We are going to dispose of unneeded and unused Federal Government 
property, whether it is military, whether it is buildings, whether it 
is lands--things we do not use, do not need but we are spending $8 
billion a year taking care of. We can get tremendous savings from that. 
That is what any other right-minded person would do. They would get rid 
of the stuff they are not using so they do not continue to send money 
down a rat hole.
  We are going to rescind uncommitted and unspent Federal funds. We 
have hundreds of billions of dollars setting that are not even in the 
pipeline, and we are going to borrow more rather than more efficiently 
use money we have. That is the first amendment; it is $60 billion, 
$60.5 billion.
  The second amendment is $59.6 billion. It is a 1-year freeze on 
bonuses and raises and other salary increases for Federal employees. 
They make 45 percent more than everybody else in this country doing 
exactly the same thing, on average. We are going to cap the total 
number of Federal employees. We have added 180,000 Federal employees in 
the last 18 months--180,000.
  We are going to collect unpaid taxes from Federal employees. We have 
Federal employees who are working today who owe the Federal Government 
$3 billion. We ought to collect that money. It ought to come out of 
their paychecks. That is undisputed debt; that is not the disputed 
portion. That is the undisputed portion of what they owe the IRS. For 
everything except DOD we are going to ask for a 5-percent efficiency 
gain in administration. Do more with less. Everybody else in this 
country is doing more with less, except the Federal Government. We are 
going to say: No, we cannot do that? Why not? It is interesting, on the 
Debt Commission we had a good discussion with Dave Cote, who is the CEO 
of Honeywell, explaining that every year they do more with less. They 
spend less dollars to get more out. They have less people to produce 
the same amount. It is called efficiency. It is called productivity--
except we will not apply that to our own government employees.
  We are going to reduce nonessential government travel. It is billions 
of dollars a year. If we are in a financial pinch--and I would love for 
somebody to debate me that we are not--why would we not limit travel to 
that which is only essential?
  We are going to rescind money that Chairman Obey in the House 
recognized on the WIC Program is not being used. We are going to strike 
$68 million in U.N. emergency funding for the next fiscal year. Most of 
the Members of this body voted for an amendment that required 
transparency in the U.N. We give them over $6 billion a year. Twenty-
six percent of the budget for U.N. peacekeeping is ours; we pay for it. 
Yet with an audit of their moneys, half of their moneys--over 60 
percent of it--was found to be fraudulent. So we passed an amendment 
out of the Senate, unanimously, that required transparency from the 
U.N., except when it got to the conference committee it was not there 
anymore.
  I will tell you, the American people deserve to know where their 
money is being wasted at the U.N. So we ought to clip that. We ought to 
cut that back. We ought to say: You give us transparency; we will give 
you money. You do not give us transparency; we will not give you money.

[[Page 9043]]

  We are going to eliminate bonuses for poor contractor performance. Do 
you realize the Federal Government pays bonuses for companies that 
never complete their contracts? Two years ago, the Pentagon paid out $4 
billion in bonuses to contractors who did not meet the standards for 
the bonus, but they paid them anyway. Well, that makes a joke of the 
contracting process. It also makes a joke out of us that we would allow 
that to continue to happen.
  So on these two amendments you will have plenty of opportunity with 
which to make a decision on whether you want to be on the side of 
Madeline or on the side of the elitism in Washington--the group that 
does not care what America thinks. We know better. The group that says: 
We are not in an emergency. We are not in a problem. We can continue to 
spend money and not make hard choices.
  There is an emergency, and the emergency is our very survival, our 
economic survival, our survival as a republic.
  I will close with the following: If you study the Roman Empire or if 
you study the Athenian Empire, you will find common threads among both. 
The No. 1 common thread is they fell after they became indentured in 
their own fiscal policies. They could no longer support their military. 
Their elected bodies refused to make tough choices.
  We are sitting here saying: Europe, you have to make tough choices. 
You have to get your spending in line with your productivity. We are 
talking with a hollow ring to our voice because if there is anybody who 
needs to get their spending in priority, it is us. I am not against 
paying for the war. I am not against supporting our troops. I am not 
against the FEMA money we need. I am against us not paying for it, and 
I am very disappointed we have cloture filed this evening because what 
that means is the American people are not going to see how we as 
individual Members vote on tough choices.
  I am going to have two tough choices out there. It remains to be seen 
whether we get a chance to vote on them through the majority's ability 
to cut off debate. But we ought to. We ought to do what is the best, 
right thing for the country. We ought to be able to come together and 
agree we should not abuse the emergency designation; that we should not 
abuse pay-go; that, in fact, we should not delay making the hard 
choices because the choices are just going to get harder. They are 
going to get harder every year we do not do this.
  Now is the time to start doing it. If we choose not to, then what we 
are saying is: Madeline, as to your future, we are going to steal it 
from you. We are going to steal opportunities for a future like we have 
had. We are going to take those, and we are going to indenture her to 
an economy that does not grow, with opportunities for an education that 
will be limited, including the ability to own her own home. All those 
things will come around.
  We only have three ways to get out of the problem we are in. The 
first way is we can default. Everybody says: Oh, no, you cannot say 
that. You cannot talk about that. Well, when Moody's is getting ready 
to downgrade our bonds from AAA, that is the first sign we are moving 
in that direction.
  The second thing we can do is have the Federal Reserve inflate our 
way out of it to where that means the life savings of everybody are 
going to be debased, and their purchasing power is going to go away or 
markedly be reduced.
  Or we can do the third thing: Not let either of those two bad things 
happen by making hard choices ourselves on what we need to be doing--by 
eliminating the junk, the waste, the duplication, and the fraud in the 
Federal Government. It is there. It is there to the tune of $300 
billion a year.
  So when this extender package comes--whether it comes this week or 
next week or the week when we come back--there is plenty of money to 
pay for it, too, if we will just stand and be counted, not as Senators 
but as Americans who would like to see the future bright for their 
Madelines.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to strongly 
support the legislation called the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act. With 
all we have seen in the gulf coast over the past several weeks, I have 
to say I am more committed than ever in moving forward on three fronts 
to protect our taxpayers, our families, and all of our workers across 
the country.
  First of all, I am going to keep working to hold BP accountable and 
make sure taxpayers in Washington State and across the country are not 
left holding the bag for this devastation. This is exactly what the Big 
Oil Bailout Prevention Act is going to do.
  Secondly, I am going to fight to guarantee that what we are seeing in 
the gulf coast is never allowed to happen on the west coast.
  Third, I am going to make sure BP, Transocean, and all industry 
owners and operators are doing everything possible to protect their 
workers and make sure tragedies like this do not ever happen again. 
Here are the facts:
  On April 20, 2010, there was a massive blowout and explosion on a BP 
oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Eleven workers are still missing 
and presumed dead, and 17 more were injured. That explosion caused a 
gushing spill that has now poured hundreds of thousands of barrels of 
oil into the gulf and threatens still to spill millions more. It has, 
as we all know, created an environmental and economic tragedy the 
magnitude of which we are only just beginning to comprehend.
  It is threatening entire communities and industry, and now the oil 
and chemical dispersants that are being sprayed into the gulf have the 
potential to kill underwater wildlife and create underwater ``dead 
zones'' for decades to come.
  Those are the facts. Now, the questions are: Who should be 
responsible for this cleanup? Who should bear the burden for big oil's 
mistakes? Should it be the taxpayers, families, and small business 
owners who are already being asked to bear so much today or should it 
be the companies responsible for this spill, including BP--a company, 
by the way, that made $6.1 billion in profit in the first 3 months of 
2010 alone.
  I cosponsored the Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act because, to me, the 
answer is pretty clear: I believe BP needs to be held accountable for 
the environmental and economic damage of this spill. I am going to 
fight to make sure taxpayers do not end up losing a single dime to pay 
for the mess this big oil company created.
  To me, this is an issue of fundamental fairness. If an oil company 
causes a spill, they should be the one to clean it up and pay for it--
not taxpayers. This bill I am talking about this evening eliminates the 
current $75 million cap on oil company liability so taxpayers will 
never be left holding the bag for big oil's mistakes.
  This is straightforward, it is common sense, and it is fair. I have 
to say, I am extremely disappointed this commonsense bill continues to 
be blocked by some Republicans every time we bring it up. But I want 
you to know, I am going to keep fighting for the Big Oil Bailout 
Prevention Act to pass, and I am going to keep fighting so families and 
taxpayers in Washington State and across the country do not end up 
holding the bag.
  The bottom line is this: If oil companies are going to make billions 
of dollars in profits when times are good, they should not be allowed 
to leave taxpayers hanging when they create a problem.
  The Big Oil Bailout Prevention Act writes this commonsense policy 
into law, and I urge every Senator to side with our taxpayers and 
support this important legislation. But I do not think that is enough. 
I have always been opposed to drilling off the coast of my home State 
of Washington, and this tragedy is just one more very painful reminder 
of the potential consequences of opening up our west coast to drilling.

[[Page 9044]]

  The economic and environmental devastation that was caused by the 
Exxon Valdez disaster 20 years ago is now still impacting industry in 
my home State of Washington. Our coastal region supports over 150,000 
jobs, and it generates almost $10 billion in economic activity, all of 
which would be threatened if drilling were to happen off our west 
coast.
  That is why I am going to keep fighting for legislation that bans 
drilling off the west coast and makes sure big oil companies are never 
allowed to roll the dice with Washington State's economy and our 
environment.
  We need to hold big oil accountable and we need to make sure that 
disasters such as this never happen again, but we also have to remember 
the workers who were killed and injured in this horrible tragedy. We 
cannot forget this is an issue that is larger than this one tragedy. 
The entire oil and gas industry has a deplorable record of worker and 
workplace safety. We have to make sure every worker is treated properly 
and protected, and that companies that mistreat their workers are held 
accountable.
  We know the oil industry is able to operate under stricter safety 
standards and regulations because they are already doing just that in 
Europe and in Australia, and even in Contra Costa County, CA, where the 
county has a set of stricter guidelines that have now reduced injuries 
and fatality rates. But we also know that worker safety should not be 
measured just by injury rates. We should be looking at reducing 
dangerous conditions--conditions such as fires or hazardous spills or 
releases of toxic gases. Then when accidents do happen, we have to 
record them, we need to learn from them, and we need to build on a 
program to prevent them from ever happening again; and we need to make 
sure our workers are treated with respect and their rights are 
protected.
  That is exactly why I am so concerned about the recent reports of 
very callous and unacceptable treatment of Transocean workers in the 
hours following that April 20 explosion. Those reports suggest that 
Transocean put their bottom line above safety standards, above 
environmental impact, and the well-being of their workers. I have 
called on the company to release copies of legal waivers that surviving 
crew members of the Deepwater Horizon were reportedly forced to sign 
following that oil rig explosion. I am going to stay on top of this to 
make sure that Transocean produces those requested documents so we can 
get to the bottom of exactly how this situation was handled.
  Workers everywhere ought to be confident that their employers are 
putting their safety first, and companies that betray that trust have 
to be held accountable. So I am going to work to make sure that 
happens, and I am going to continue fighting to keep drilling away from 
the Washington State coastline. I am going to keep pushing for this 
bill to make sure taxpayers don't have to pay for big oil's mistakes.
  Anyone deciding whether to support this legislation ought to ask 
themselves a few simple questions: Who are you fighting for? Who are 
you trying to help? Are you here to protect and shield big oil 
companies or are you going to fight for our families and our taxpayers? 
I support this legislation because, to me, the answer is pretty clear. 
I urge all of our colleagues to allow this bill to pass so our 
taxpayers in my home State of Washington and across the country can be 
protected.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Senate Daily Digest proceeded to call the 
roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 4179

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to offer some 
amendments and to call up several amendments regarding the emergency 
disaster loan program and SBA disaster loan relief on the underlying 
bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set 
aside to call up amendment No. 4179, which should be at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4179.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To allow the Administrator of the Small Business 
 Administration to create or save jobs by providing interest relief on 
  certain outstanding disaster loans relating to damage caused by the 
     2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes or the 2008 Gulf Coast hurricanes)

       On page 74, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:

                               CHAPTER 12

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                     Small Business Administration

                     disaster loans program account

       From unobligated balances in the appropriations account 
     appropriated under this heading, up to $100,000,000 shall be 
     available to the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration to waive the payment, for a period of not more 
     than 3 years, of not more than $15,000 in interest on loans 
     made under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     636(b)): Provided, That funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for any business located in an area 
     affected by a hurricane occurring during 2005 or 2008 for 
     which the President declared a major disaster under section 
     401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170): Provided further, That the 
     Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, give priority 
     to an application for a waiver of interest under the program 
     established under this heading by a small business concern 
     (as defined under section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 632)) with not more than 50 employees or that the 
     Administrator determines suffered a substantial economic 
     injury as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 
     2010: Provided further, That the Administrator may not 
     approve an application under the program established under 
     this heading after December 31, 2010: Provided further, That 
     if a disaster is declared under section 7(b) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C.636(b)) during the period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 
     2010, and to the extent there are inadequate funds in the 
     appropriations account under this heading to provide 
     assistance relating to the disaster under section 7(b) of the 
     Small Business Act and waive the payment of interest under 
     the program established under this heading, the Administrator 
     shall give priority in using the funds to applications under 
     section 7(b) of the Small Business Act relating to the 
     disaster: Provided further, That the amount made available 
     under this heading is designated as an emergency for purposes 
     of pay-as-you-go principles and, in the Senate, is designated 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 403(a) of S. 
     Con. Res. 13 (111th Congress), the concurrent resolution on 
     the budget for fiscal year 2010: Provided further, That the 
     amount made available under this heading is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 4(g) of the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-139; 2 
     U.S.C. 933(g)).

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have a series of amendments that will, 
I believe, give some direct relief and support to individuals and 
businesses that are struggling with the disaster that is going on in 
the gulf area, as the Presiding Officer and everyone is aware. We have 
a terrible situation on our hands. I know the Federal Government, 
particularly the Coast Guard and the Department of the Interior, the 
Department of Homeland Security, and others are doing everything they 
can to stop the flow of this oil and to cap this well. While it is BP's 
responsibility, it is also our responsibility to make sure it gets done 
as soon as possible, and I know that is being worked on at many 
different levels.
  But in the meantime, as the Presiding Officer can imagine, there is a 
tremendous amount of angst on behalf of the families and businesses 
along the gulf coast. Many have already, unfortunately, been directly 
affected in a very negative way.
  So many of us have been working now for weeks thinking about what 
things we could do that could give

[[Page 9045]]

some direct relief and support and help that didn't cost the Federal 
Government a huge amount of money, because we understand we are in 
fiscal times of constraint, but we also need to give help to people, 
and some confidence, now knowing that BP has said, and under the law 
will be required, to pick up the full tab on this.
  The first amendment will allow the Small Business Administration--and 
they already have funding to do this and are supportive of this 
amendment--to provide relief of up to $15,000 of interest on current 
loans that are outstanding from previous disasters. Because when we 
think about it, one of the most troubling aspects of this is that this 
emergency is happening in the same place that Katrina and Rita took 
place--along the gulf coast--so businesses that are still trying to pay 
off loans from the last disaster are now, unfortunately, having to 
contemplate the idea that they may have to take out additional economic 
injury loans to help them through this. What I think we can do is 
allocate some money we already have allocated in that budget for this 
purpose, and it would be a tremendous help.
  That is what the first amendment does. It would also require the SBA 
to prioritize applications for businesses with fewer than 50 employees 
or less, and businesses impacted by this recent Deepwater Horizon 
spill. It gives some targeted relief, and it could be significant. Some 
of these businesses could waive basically almost all of their interest 
associated with their loans which could cut their payments either in 
half or by three-quarters. According to some of the analyses we have 
done, there are about 11,700 loans outstanding in the gulf, so that 
would be a great help.


                           Amendment No. 4180

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside to call up another amendment that is at the desk, 
amendment No. 4180, disaster loan referral.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4180.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To defer payments of principal and interest on disaster loans 
              relating to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill)

       On page 79, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 2002. DISASTER LOANS.

       For any loan under section 7(b) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) made as a result of the discharge of oil 
     that began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and 
     sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
     Horizon, the Administrator of the Small Business 
     Administration shall defer payments of principal and interest 
     for not longer than 1 year after the date of disbursement of 
     the loan. For a loan described in this section, the 
     Administrator shall accept as collateral, where practicable, 
     the interest of the applicant in a claim against British 
     Petroleum relating to the discharge of oil.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment is another tool we can 
use to give help to these businesses along the gulf coast. It would 
actually set up a relatively new procedure but based on past action.
  This procedure would allow the SBA, in giving out an economic damage 
loan, to substitute the collateral that is normally required, which 
would be a house or some asset--a boat or something else--to substitute 
that for the pending BP claim, so that it is technically a loan, but it 
is acting as a cash advance, to keep businesses in business, to keep 
lights on, to keep mortgages being paid. I understand the SBA is 
looking closely at this and may very well want to do it, and this would 
authorize it.
  That is the essence of this amendment, which is to give up to $2 
million in what would be technically a loan, but with these changes I 
am proposing would actually act as more of an advance, because no 
interest or principle would be due for a year. Then, of course, we hope 
that by then, and maybe even before then, BP meets all of its 
obligations and all of its claims. A year may be enough time and, if 
not, we have language that would extend it.


                    Amendment No. 4184, As Modified

  With that, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside to call up amendment No. 4184.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 4184 be 
modified with the changes at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4184, as modified.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

    (Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to maximize the 
 placement of dredged material available from maintenance dredging of 
 existing navigation channels to mitigate the impacts of the Deepwater 
    Horizon Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico at full Federal expense)

       On page 30, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       Sec. 4__. (a) The Secretary of the Army may use funds made 
     available under the heading``operation and maintenance'' of 
     this chapter to place, at full Federal expense, dredged 
     material available from maintenance dredging of existing 
     Federal navigation channels located in the Gulf coast region 
     to mitigate the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill in 
     the Gulf of Mexico.
       (b) The Secretary of the Army shall coordinate the 
     placement of dredged material with appropriate Federal and 
     Gulf Coast State agencies.
       (c) The placement of dredged material pursuant to this 
     section shall not be subject to a least-cost-disposal 
     analysis or to the development of a Chief of Engineers 
     report.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is a very important amendment, and 
it is something that our delegation has actually been working on for 
quite some time, and we have actually passed it before in the Senate, 
which is a happy circumstance.
  This language has been unfortunately taken out in conference on 
several occasions by the Corps of Engineers, so I am thinking now that 
this disaster has maybe helped them to rethink the worthiness of this 
amendment, because, again, it doesn't add any money to the Federal 
budget. This amendment will allow beneficial use of dredged material, 
so when the Corps of Engineers spends the $170 million we give it every 
year to dredge our channels, to keep our navigation channels open, they 
can take that dredged material and use it for a beneficial use. That 
might be restoring a marsh. It might be building a levee, and it might 
be stopping oil from hitting the coastline, which would be a very good 
use, in my mind, of that beneficial dredge material.
  Right now, our State has a pending request to the Corps of Engineers 
to try to help us build--not provide--well, we want them to provide 
boom, but the boom isn't working very well, to be honest. We need them 
to do some dredging, potentially a long number of miles, but strategic 
dredging and building sand barriers to keep that oil from these 
precious marshlands and estuary areas. This does not meet that full 
request, but it does allow the Corps of Engineers in the budget 
authority they already have to use some of that dredge material in a 
very strategic way, and if we can pass this bill this week and get this 
language to the President's desk very soon, which I hope we can, within 
a few weeks it is possible this could go right to work in the gulf.
  That is the essence of that amendment. It will help protect our 
wetlands, again, within the budget constraints already in the 
President's budget.

[[Page 9046]]




                           Amendment No. 4213

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside to call up amendment No. 4213.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4213.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide authority to the Secretary of the Interior to 
 immediately fund projects under the Coastal Impact Assistance Program 
                         on an emergency basis)

       On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 30__. COASTAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 31 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1356a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Emergency Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--In response to a spill of national 
     significance under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 
     2701 et seq.), at the request of a producing State or coastal 
     political subdivision and notwithstanding the requirements of 
     part 12 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
     successor regulation), the Secretary may immediately disburse 
     funds allocated under this section for 1 or more individual 
     projects that are--
       ``(A) consistent with subsection (d); and
       ``(B) specifically designed to respond to the spill of 
     national significance.
       ``(2) Approval by secretary.--The Secretary may, in the 
     sole discretion of the Secretary, approve, on a project by 
     project basis, the immediate disbursal of the funds under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) State requirements.--
       ``(A) Additional information.--If the Secretary approves a 
     project for funding under this subsection that is included in 
     a plan previously approved under subsection (c), not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the funding approval, the 
     producing State or coastal political subdivision shall submit 
     to the Secretary any additional information that the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary to ensure compliance 
     with subsection (d).
       ``(B) Amendment to plan.--If the Secretary approves a 
     project for funding under this subsection that is not 
     included in a plan previously approved under subsection (c), 
     not later than 180 days after the date of the funding 
     approval, the producing State or coastal political 
     subdivision shall submit to the Secretary for approval an 
     amendment to the plan that includes any projects funded under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Limitation.--If a producing State or coastal 
     political subdivision does not submit the additional 
     information or amendments to the plan required by this 
     paragraph by the deadlines specified in this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall not disburse any additional funds to the 
     producing State or the coastal political subdivisions until 
     the date on which the additional information or amendment to 
     the plan has been approved by the Secretary.''.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is another I think smart action 
this Congress could take to help the gulf coast and particularly the 
State of Louisiana.
  Before the Presiding Officer got to the Senate, in one of our last 
energy bills we were able to fund a very important program called the 
Coastal Impact Assistance Program. It is a precursor to the revenue-
sharing program I helped to implement some years ago, although the 
money from that program hasn't yet started to flow. This was almost 
like a downpayment. It took some money from the Federal budget that we 
had made available, actually quite a bit--$1 billion--and divided it on 
a formula based on production and miles of coastline to the four gulf 
coast States that are bearing the brunt of this production, which is 
very obvious, painfully obvious today.
  The happy news is we got that program passed and the money has been 
funded to the agency. The sad news is, it is still tied up in red tape. 
So my amendment would expedite the dispersal of these funds, 
particularly to States where programs have already been approved by the 
Federal agencies in charge and when these programs can be shown to be 
of use in fighting this current oilspill. The Presiding Officer knows, 
because he has heard me give this speech 10 times in committee and at 
least 25 times on the floor, if Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama 
and Texas had had some of this money from offshore oil and gas that has 
gone almost all to the Treasury of the United States, we could have 
before now done some things to build up our barrier islands, protect 
our coastlines, protect our marshes, but we have been shortchanged year 
after year after year. This amendment is not going to fix that problem, 
but it will say that for the money Congress has already appropriated 
for this program, it could be expedited to the States that have their 
programs already approved, and that would be the State of Louisiana 
which is in, unfortunately, the eye of this storm as well.


                           Amendment No. 4182

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
temporarily set aside so that I may call up an amendment No. 4182.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4182.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of the Army to use certain funds for 
 the construction of authorized restoration projects in the Louisiana 
              coastal area ecosystem restoration program)

       On page 30, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 4__. LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA.

       Of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this chapter, the Secretary of the Army shall use 
     $19,000,000 for the construction of authorized restoration 
     projects under the Louisiana coastal area ecosystem 
     restoration program authorized under title VII of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-114; 121 
     Stat. 1270).

  Ms. LANDRIEU. This amendment will cost $19 million, but in some ways 
it is simply advancing what the President already has in his budget for 
these very important projects. President Obama should get a tremendous 
amount of credit for being the first President in the last decade or 
more--actually, the last 15 or 16 years--to actually fund a 
construction project on Louisiana's coast--a wetlands construction 
project. All we have been doing for the last 35 years is studying the 
situation. It has been very difficult for our delegation, and maybe it 
won't be so difficult, now that people have watched us go through 
Katrina and Rita, and now the oilspill, to understand the impact we 
have been talking about.
  It is hard to even say this, but neither President Clinton nor 
President Bush--although we had many plans that had been approved--ever 
sent any money for construction and for new programs for the wetlands. 
We finally got President Obama, to his credit, to send in his budget to 
us this year $19 million for the purpose of protecting vulnerable 
coastal wetlands and strengthening the resiliency of that coast. So 
while we have a score of $19 million--and I know we are trying to keep 
the bill to a minimum--it is almost as if we might spend it now, and 
save it later, as long as we don't respend the $19 million. It is in 
the President's budget. It would be good to get that signal now from 
the Congress that these programs can go forward.
  I hope the administration will take a strong look at this. They have 
already gotten a tremendous amount of credit, as they deserve, from the 
people of Louisiana for even putting in the President's budget this $19 
million, because we definitely need it. This would help us accelerate 
that. I hope we can get that done.


                           Amendment No. 4234

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside so that I may call up a final amendment, No. 4234.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4234.


[[Page 9047]]

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To establish a program, and to make available funds, to 
    provide technical assistance grants for use by organizations in 
assisting individuals and businesses affected by the Deepwater Horizon 
                    oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico)

       Beginning on page 74, strike line 13 and all that follows 
     through page 79, line 3, and insert the following:

                                TITLE II

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Economic Development Administration

                economic development assistance programs

       For an additional amount, in addition to amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, for ``Economic Development Assistance 
     Programs'', to carry out planning, technical assistance and 
     other assistance under section 209, and consistent with 
     section 703(b), of the Public Works and Economic Development 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 3149, 3233), in States affected by the 
     incidents related to the discharge of oil that began in 2010 
     in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the 
     mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, $10,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended, of which not less than 
     $5,000,000 shall be used to provide technical assistance 
     grants in accordance with section 2002.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                  operations, research, and facilities

       For an additional amount, in addition to amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, for ``Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'', $13,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for responding to economic impacts on fishermen and 
     fishery-dependent businesses: Provided, That the amounts 
     appropriated herein are not available unless the Secretary of 
     Commerce determines that resources provided under other 
     authorities and appropriations including by the responsible 
     parties under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701, et seq., 
     are not sufficient to respond to economic impacts on 
     fishermen and fishery-dependent business following an 
     incident related to a spill of national significance declared 
     under the National Contingency Plan provided for under 
     section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
     Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9605).
       For an additional amount, in addition to amounts provided 
     elsewhere in this Act, for ``Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'', for activities undertaken including scientific 
     investigations and sampling as a result of the incidents 
     related to the discharge of oil and the use of oil 
     dispersants that began in 2010 in connection with the 
     explosion on, and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling 
     unit Deepwater Horizon, $7,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended. These activities may be funded through the 
     provision of grants to universities, colleges and other 
     research partners through extramural research funding.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'', 
     Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human 
     Services, for food safety monitoring and response activities 
     in connection with the incidents related to the discharge of 
     oil that began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, 
     and sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
     Horizon, $2,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                          Departmental Offices

                        Office of the Secretary

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for the ``Office of the Secretary, 
     Salaries and Expenses'' for increased inspections, 
     enforcement, investigations, environmental and engineering 
     studies, and other activities related to emergency offshore 
     oil spill incidents in the Gulf of Mexico, $29,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That such funds 
     may be transferred by the Secretary to any other account in 
     the Department of the Interior to carry out the purposes 
     provided herein.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                            Legal Activities

            salaries and expenses, general legal activities

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     General Legal Activities'', $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for litigation expenses resulting from 
     incidents related to the discharge of oil that began in 2010 
     in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the 
     mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon.

                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                         Science and Technology

       For an additional amount for ``Science and Technology'' for 
     a study on the potential human and environmental risks and 
     impacts of the release of crude oil and the application of 
     dispersants, surface washing agents, bioremediation agents, 
     and other mitigation measures listed in the National 
     Contingency Plan Product List (40 C.F.R. Part 300 Subpart J), 
     as appropriate, $2,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the study shall be performed at the 
     direction of the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in coordination with the Secretary of 
     Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior: Provided further, 
     That the study may be funded through the provision of grants 
     to universities and colleges through extramural research 
     funding.

                     GENERAL PROVISION--THIS TITLE

                           deepwater horizon

     SEC. 2001. SECTION 6002(B) OF THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 
                   (33 U.S.C. 2752) IS AMENDED IN THE SECOND 
                   SENTENCE:

       (1) by inserting ``: (1)'' before ``may obtain an advance'' 
     and after ``the Coast Guard'';
       (2) by striking ``advance. Amounts'' and inserting the 
     following: ``advance; (2) in the case of discharge of oil 
     that began in 2010 in connection with the explosion on, and 
     sinking of, the mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater 
     Horizon, may, without further appropriation, obtain one or 
     more advances from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund as 
     needed, up to a maximum of $100,000,000 for each advance, the 
     total amount of all advances not to exceed the amounts 
     available under section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 9509(c)(2)), and within 7 days of 
     each advance, shall notify Congress of the amount advanced 
     and the facts and circumstances necessitating the advance; 
     and (3) amounts''.

     SEC. 2002. OIL SPILL CLAIMS ASSISTANCE AND RECOVERY.

       (a) Establishment of Grant Program.--The Secretary of 
     Commerce (referred to in this section as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall establish a grant program to provide to eligible (as 
     determined by the Secretary) organizations technical 
     assistance grants for use in assisting individuals and 
     businesses affected by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the 
     Gulf of Mexico (referred to in this section as the ``oil 
     spill'').
       (b) Application.--An organization that seeks to receive a 
     grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application for the grant at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary shall require.
       (c) Use of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Funds from a grant provided under this 
     section may be used by an eligible organization--
       (A) to support--
       (i) education;
       (ii) outreach;
       (iii) intake;
       (iv) language services;
       (v) accounting services;
       (vi) legal services offered pro bono or by a nonprofit 
     organization;
       (vii) damage assessments;
       (viii) economic loss analysis;
       (ix) collecting and preparing documentation; and
       (x) assistance in the preparation and filing of claims or 
     appeals;
       (B) to provide assistance to individuals or businesses 
     seeking assistance from or under--
       (i) a party responsible for the oil spill;
       (ii) the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund;
       (iii) an insurance policy; or
       (iv) any other program administered by the Federal 
     Government or a State or local government;
       (C) to pay for salaries, training, and appropriate expenses 
     relating to the purchase or lease of property to support 
     operations, equipment (including computers and 
     telecommunications), and travel expenses;
       (D) to assist other organizations in--
       (i) assisting specific business sectors;
       (ii) providing services;
       (iii) assisting specific jurisdictions; or
       (iv) otherwise supporting operations; and
       (E) to establish an advisory board of service providers and 
     technical experts--
       (i) to monitor the claims process relating to the oil 
     spill; and
       (ii) to provide recommendations to the parties responsible 
     for the oil spill, the National Pollution Funds Center, other 
     appropriate agencies, and Congress to improve fairness and 
     efficiency in the claims process.
       (2) Prohibition on use of funds.--Funds from a grant 
     provided under this section may not be used to provide 
     compensation for damages or removal costs relating to the oil 
     spill.
       (d) Provision of Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall provide grants 
     under this section.
       (2) Networked organizations.--The Secretary is encouraged 
     to consider applications for grants under this section from 
     organizations that have established networks with affected 
     business sectors, including--
       (A) the fishery and aquaculture industries;
       (B) the restaurant, grocery, food processing, and food 
     delivery industries; and
       (C) the hotel and tourism industries.
       (3) Training.--Not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which an eligible organization

[[Page 9048]]

     receives a grant under this section, the Director of the 
     National Pollution Funds Center and the parties responsible 
     for the oil spill shall provide training to the organization 
     regarding the applicable rules and procedures for the claims 
     process relating to the oil spill.
       (4) Availability of funds.--Funds from a grant provided 
     under this section shall be available until the later of, as 
     determined by the Secretary--
       (A) the date that is 6 years after the date on which the 
     oil spill occurred; and
       (B) the date on which all claims relating to the oil spill 
     have been satisfied.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this is an amendment that will provide 
some additional funding for technical assistance grants--disaster 
assistance--for the gulf coast. The President had a fairly robust 
package represented in this bill--I think $118 million. I hope I am 
correct about that. It was a good package of aid. I think it needs to 
be made more robust.
  In one section in particular, the President suggested that we spend 
$5 million along the gulf coast giving technical assistance to 
organizations and nonprofits to help these individuals, many who cannot 
afford, as you know, to hire a lawyer to process paperwork or hire an 
accountant to process the paperwork. After Katrina and Rita, we found 
it was very helpful to spend a little bit of money and give grants to 
some of these nonprofit groups that can work with large communities of 
people who are affected--the Vietnamese fishing community is a good 
example--so that each of the 100 fishermen don't have to go out--I am 
not trying to put lawyers out of business, and I don't want to get in 
trouble with them, but it is not necessary, and it can be a waste of 
money to hire lawyers and accountants to process what should be a 
simple claim. Even simple claims can be complicated in some of these 
situations. That is basically what this amendment does. I think it 
would provide more funding for claims across the gulf coast. I think we 
can use $5 million across Louisiana alone. My amendment would raise 
that number to $20 million.
  Those are basically what these four or five amendments will do.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 HAITI

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know my good friend Bob Casey is here 
to speak, so I will be just a few more minutes. This is on a separate 
subject, but one that is very important.
  We have several disasters going on in this country and around the 
world. One is the one I just spoke about--most important to me and the 
one that has captured the world's attention as oil continues to flow in 
the gulf. We have to do more and we have to be more focused. We have to 
hold BP's feet to the fire to get this well shut off. The best 
scientists in the world need to be working on this. I have assurances 
from Secretary Salazar that they are.
  New technologies need to be deployed quickly, and the cleaning 
process needs to be expedited and streamlined so that not one person, 
one boat owner, or one business goes out of business, or one fisherman 
goes broke because of this situation.
  Across the ocean, in Haiti, a great disaster occurred not that long 
ago, as you will remember. So many things have happened since then, and 
sometimes the world's attention gets turned. I wish to turn it back for 
a minute. The people of Haiti live in one of the poorest countries in 
the world and the Western Hemisphere. It is a country that is close 
culturally to many of us in the United States--particularly people I 
represent in Louisiana. We have many Haitian families in New Orleans. 
We have a close tie with Haiti. We are not a Caribbean state, but we 
feel a little Caribbean and tropical at times, since we are in the 
South. We have a lot of business with Haiti and with many of our 
southern neighbors. We have longstanding musical and art connections. 
Our heart has gone out to Haiti, plus the people of Louisiana and the 
gulf coast, who have experienced tremendous disasters. We can empathize 
with what they are going through in the aftermath of the earthquake.
  I will make three points about this Haiti rebuilding. In New Orleans, 
when my brother was sworn in as mayor a few weeks ago, he said: Ladies 
and gentlemen, citizens of New Orleans, the day of recovery and 
restoration needs to be over. The day of creating needs to begin. We 
need to create a new city--a new city that is more fair, just, and 
open. He said that we have to think about using the opportunity of the 
revenues that have come to create something new and better that wasn't 
here before for the people who deserve it. I think that is a great call 
of a very visionary leader.
  The same is true for Haiti. While Haiti, for a time, will recover and 
try to stabilize itself, at some point it needs to think about creating 
a new kind of Haiti. In my view, and in the view of many Senators and 
Members of Congress, many NGOs and many members of the Haitian 
Diaspora, one of the most important cornerstones that should be laid 
down is a free, universal, publicly funded school system for the 
children of Haiti, which represents 50 percent of its population today 
and 100 percent of its future. I will repeat that. Fifty percent of the 
population today--one of the youngest nations on Earth--and 100 percent 
of Haiti's future. The shame of it is, before the earthquake, less than 
50 percent of the children went to school. They didn't have an 
opportunity to go to school. Of that 50 percent who were enrolled in 
school, the shame of it is that the enrollment fees and the tuition 
fees ate up anywhere from 50 percent to 60 percent of the household 
income.
  So when people say where is the capital in Haiti, the capital was 
being spent on poorly run, poorly licensed, nonquality schools that 
were too expensive and not doing the job. We need to help them create a 
new Haiti with the money the Americans have already given and donors 
have pledged. We are not required or expected to fund it and our 
taxpayers cannot do that. But we can put up our support and voice and 
use a portion of the money we are going to give and say if you are 
going to spend American taxpayer dollars, spend it well, creating a 
new, more just Haiti and begin by building a school system.
  That is what one of my amendments tomorrow will do--when I lay it 
down--for Haiti and what some of us are working on.
  The second thing is a little more sensitive and maybe not as popular 
a subject. I will say a word about it anyway. In Haiti, there is a 
terrible and very unjust system that exists. I am not an expert, but I 
have learned a lot in the last few weeks as I have studied it. It is 
called the restavec system. It is a system of domestic servitude, where 
poor children are basically given up by their families to go work for a 
slightly wealthier family. Restavec children have no rights. They are 
forced to work very long hours. Most restage children have never seen 
the front door of a school. It is a system that has gone on in Haiti 
for too long, and it needs to come to an end. I hope that the Senate of 
the United States will not pass up the opportunity to express a strong 
voice to the Government of Haiti, to our partners around the world, to 
good people of good will everywhere, to put pressure on the Haitian 
government. To some, it may not be that necessary. Many people there 
want this to change. It is a system that people are not comfortable 
talking about, but it exists. There are a lot of studies on it, and we 
will talk about it in the days to come. We must make a strong statement 
on that while this bill is on the floor.
  I see my colleague, the Senator from Pennsylvania, here. I yield the 
floor and look forward to discussing and offering these amendments on 
the disaster in New Orleans, in Louisiana, and the Gulf Coast, and on 
the disaster in Haiti tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, first, I commend the work of Senator 
Landrieu, who always brings passion and commitment to so many issues. 
Of course, those that relate to our State of Louisiana are always at 
the top of the list. We are grateful for that and

[[Page 9049]]

for her speaking out on the people of Haiti. We are honored to be able 
to hear that tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Potential of Children

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I think if there is one way to describe, 
summarize, or encapsulate the feelings that are not only I think 
prevalent in the Senate or in the Congress but throughout the country, 
when we think of our children and all children, I think we have a basic 
belief that every single child in America is born with a light inside 
them. For some children, of course, because of their circumstance, the 
family they come from, the situation into which they are born, that 
light is as bright as it can be; it is incandescent. You cannot see the 
limits of it. It is blinding that they are so full of potential and 
ability and they don't need as much help. They are going to be fine 
because of the brightness of that light--the measure of their 
potential.
  For other children, they are born with a bright light, but it doesn't 
shine quite as brightly, because of all kinds of circumstances. We have 
all experienced this in our lives and in our own families and with 
people we have encountered. Many elected officials have talked to their 
constituents about this. I have always believed that the obligation of 
a public official, no matter where you are, no matter what level of 
government, or no matter what degree of responsibility you have, has a 
basic obligation to make sure that the light inside of every child is 
realized, or the potential that that light indicates is realized. We 
have to do that every day one way or another.
  We had a hearing today in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee on early education. As a country, we have not met the 
obligation I believe we should meet to provide children with learning 
at the early stages of their lives. First grade and second grade are 
really too late. They need to be exposed to early learning 
opportunities earlier.
  A lot of States are doing this. There are a lot of good examples out 
there. But we have not made a national commitment to providing early 
learning opportunities. That is one thing we should do for a child to 
make sure the light of his or her potential is realized, to make sure 
they learn at a young age. It is determinative of their whole life. It 
actually has an impact on the skill of our workforce many years later.
  Secondly--not in this order--we should make sure they have enough to 
eat and get proper nutrition. Again, this happens to be what we are 
working on. The Child Nutrition Act is up for reauthorization. We are 
going to have a chance to enact another piece of legislation that will 
continue that commitment to making sure more and more of our children 
have access to nutritious foods in school and otherwise.
  We have made a lot of progress. Among the three I just mentioned, 
maybe the one we made the most progress on is health care for children. 
You cannot say the light inside a child will reach its potential if 
that child does not have health care.
  Fortunately, we are at a point now where we not only have 7 million 
children covered under the children's health insurance program, but 
that is going to grow to 14 million in just a couple of years. That is 
a remarkable achievement, but it is not enough if we cover 14 million. 
There still will be millions more, depending on what estimate is out 
there, but many millions more who will not be covered even as a result 
of the health care bill we passed. We have more work to do on health 
care.
  If we are doing the right things as public officials, no matter where 
we are, whether it is at the level of the Federal Government or all the 
way down to local, county, and State governments, we should make sure 
we are doing the job on health care for children. We are not there, but 
we have made a lot of progress.
  Make sure we are providing children with enough to eat, nutrition--we 
have a long way to go on that issue, but we have made progress.
  Thirdly, we will make sure every child has early learning 
opportunities. We have made a lot of progress and still have a ways to 
go.
  There actually is a fourth, at least the way I analyze it. The fourth 
is so fundamental that we sometimes forget about it. It is not just 
health care and nutrition and early learning; the fourth is basic 
safety, protecting children from the horrors of this Earth, from people 
who prey upon them in so many different ways, from the so many horrific 
ways children are abused and neglected and left behind and are victims 
of violence.
  Unfortunately and increasingly, that degree of violence, as it 
relates to children or young people, even through the high school 
years, is becoming more and more apparent and more and more egregious 
in our schools. We are talking about this whole concept of bullying 
about which we are hearing a lot. I realize some will say: That has 
been happening for years. Every generation has had kids picked on in 
school. So why is this any different?
  It is different today. The numbers are up, but the degree of cruelty 
and violence, in my judgment, is way up. We had a terrible example of 
that in Massachusetts a couple of months ago. I can point to several 
other States and many examples. It is true in my home State of 
Pennsylvania as well. In Pennsylvania and throughout the country, 
violence, bullying, and harassment in schools is a growing problem for 
all children. It is not restricted to one State or one locality or one 
situation.
  It is true for all children but especially--and the evidence on this 
part of the problem is overwhelming and really disturbing--the violence 
and bullying as it relates to children who happen to be gay, lesbian, 
bisexual, or transgender. We all know about the acronym GLBT. That is 
happening in greater numbers. We cannot just lament it and say: That is 
too bad, but it happens over time. It has been happening for 
generations. It is too bad there is not a lot we can do about it.
  The adults--and especially the adults who happen to be public 
officials who have the opportunity to vote or appropriate dollars or 
take action--have to do something.
  Some would say: That is a State and local school district issue. The 
Federal Government does not need to get involved.
  We have seen in the past where sometimes, if we do not take action or 
at least demonstrate leadership or at least create conditions where we 
diminish the likelihood that a child, especially a child who happens to 
be gay or lesbian, for example--they will not be the victims of 
violence if we do something about it. There is no one bill we can pass 
that will eliminate it. I understand that. But I think the idea that we 
can't do anything about it is really dishonest, at best. We ought to do 
something about it.
  According to the Department of Education--just listen to these 
numbers--one in three schoolchildren is affected by bullying or 
harassment in grades 6 through 10. That is one number.
  According to a separate study by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight 
Education Network--known by the acronym GLSEN--less than half--and this 
relates to Pennsylvania only--less than half of Pennsylvania students 
said they felt safe in school. It is a problem across the board for all 
children but especially and most disturbingly for children who happen 
to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.
  Relentless bullying results in long-term consequences for the well-
being of its victims. Just as before when I talked about the long-term 
impact of no health care or no nutrition or no early learning, this, 
too, has long-term consequences for that child, for that school, for 
that child's family, for that community, and, guess what, long term for 
all of us because it will affect whether that child reaches their 
potential, whether they have a skill level that is commensurate with 
their ability and their potential or whether they fall short of that 
because they were beaten or bullied when they were a child and they 
could not learn, and because they could not learn they did not

[[Page 9050]]

do as well in school, and because they did not do well in school, they 
did not get the job or have the skill level they could have had. If 
only we had acted and tried to do something about this situation.
  Here are some of the long-term consequences for that child:
  Students who are bullied have a decreased interest in school. Some of 
these are self-evident, but we need to remind ourselves what they are. 
That is obvious, but it is a big problem.
  Students who are bullied may be absent from school. It makes sense. 
Why would you want to go to school if you are getting beaten up and 
harassed every day and nobody is helping? That is part of the problem.
  When they are in the classroom, they have a harder time 
concentrating. I cannot even imagine. We talk about how hard it is to 
concentrate when a child does not have enough to eat. The pain of not 
having enough to eat prevents them from learning and growing as a 
student. If you are a victim of violence, you are literally in pain at 
just the anticipation of when you leave that classroom to walk down the 
hallway, that same guy or group of people is going to make you the 
victim, yet again, of harassment or bullying. It does not even have to 
be physical. Just the verbal abuse, just the intimidation is enough to 
have an impact on that child.
  We know bullying and the threat of violence is a common experience 
for young people who identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or 
transgender, or who are perceived to be by their peers. People make 
comments about someone, and then they attack them, and then they become 
a victim.
  These are not just children or young people who are someone else's 
child or someone else's problem; these are God's children. No matter 
who they are, they are God's children.
  It is the ultimate form of betrayal--just like domestic violence is--
when someone who lives in a home and is supposed to love the person is 
beating them up. That is an easy example to remember about what 
betrayal means.
  Even in the context of a school, a child goes to school to learn. The 
implication is that while they are learning, they will be safe and 
actually nurtured, especially if they are very young, that they will be 
surrounded by people who will help them and educate them but also 
protect them. Yet they go into that environment to learn and to grow, 
and they are the victims of violence, and no one in that institution 
helps them or they help them too late or they say: It is not my problem 
or it is the parents' problem or the school district's problem or 
someone else's problem. That would be one of my definitions of betrayal 
of a child in that circumstance.
  A recent study of LGBT teens reported that 9 in 10 reported 
harassment in the last year. Mr. President, 9 in 10. I don't care if it 
was 1 in 10 or if it was 5 in 10 or 6 in 10--that would be bad enough. 
But 9 in 10 in this one survey. And 3 out of 5 students reported 
feeling unsafe in school. When I was a kid, I never felt unsafe in 
school. I have no recollection of ever having that feeling in my life. 
These kids feel it every day. One-third of students said they skipped 
school in the last month because they felt unsafe coming to school. 
Talk about consequences--missing school because they feel they are 
going to be beaten up or harassed.
  Perhaps one of the most disturbing statistics is a third of all 
students said teachers and administrators rarely intervened in these 
cases. Some will say it is a generalization. I understand it is a 
generalization, but apparently it is happening out there in far too 
many cases. Of course, one case is enough. It is one thing to feel 
intimidated, scared, and fearful. It is another one to feel that no one 
around you in positions of authority will help you.
  We often talk in this country--and, of course, in Washington as 
well--about freedom, the great freedoms we have in America: the freedom 
to make your own way, to be an entrepreneur, to find your way in life, 
to start your own business, to make your own money, to travel where you 
want, to say what you want, freedom of speech--all these great freedoms 
we have, and thank goodness we have them. Thank goodness people were 
willing to die for those freedoms in our history and up to the present 
day. Men and women are serving in combat to preserve our freedoms.
  We talk about freedom, but sometimes we forget another element of the 
issue of freedom. Just like adults have the right to free speech and 
the right to assembly and all the constitutional rights we celebrate, 
young people have rights, too, or at least they should. One of the 
rights, one of the freedoms they should be allowed to enjoy is the 
freedom from fear. We have heard that expression before, ``the freedom 
from fear.'' These children I just described do not have that freedom. 
They are not free, even in this land where we celebrate freedom every 
day of the week. We have an obligation to take action to make sure that 
basic right is protected against those who would deny them that 
freedom--the freedom to be free from fear.
  We have to do something about this problem. We cannot do everything. 
Not one bill will solve this problem. But I think we can enact a couple 
pieces of legislation which will have a positive impact.
  Tomorrow, I will be introducing the Safe Schools Improvement Act. It 
will do a couple of things for this problem. It will give schools and 
districts the resources to do at least three things. They ought to do a 
lot more than this, but we are going to try to help them with at least 
these three:
  First, develop comprehensive student conduct policies that prohibit 
bullying and harassment. If you do not have a conduct policy in place, 
you have to do it if we pass this Federal legislation.
  Secondly, it will help to implement prevention strategies and 
professional development. We have to do more in prevention, and we have 
to make sure those in charge, those who have authority are, in fact, 
trained to identify and to deal with and then to punish those who are 
guilty of this kind of bullying and harassment.
  Thirdly, the Safe Schools Improvement Act will require that schools 
and districts maintain and report data regarding incidents of bullying 
and harassment. It is very important to document this, to keep good 
records so we know exactly what is happening, so when a parent shows up 
at a school and says: Well, before my child was beaten and harassed, 
was it happening before? We shouldn't have the school saying: Well, we 
are not sure. We had some reports. They should document those incidents 
and there should be a uniform way of documenting what is an example or 
a reportable act of violence.
  There is other legislation as well that many others and I are 
cosponsoring--the Student Nondiscrimination Act. That is a bill 
introduced last week by Senator Franken to expand Federal civil rights 
statutes to include a right for students against discrimination in 
school on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
  It is almost hard to believe that we would have to enact either of 
these bills, that we would have to even introduce them, but we need 
both. We need to insist that schools do a better job, and adults at the 
local level do a better job, and that we are all working on this 
problem.
  We also need to make sure that discrimination laws are enforced as it 
relates to children and young people--students--in our schools. We have 
to do this because it is a real problem.
  Young people who happen to be gay or lesbian or bisexual or 
transgender need help from all of us. They need our support. I, and I 
know many others, will continue to work to protect every child so that 
at a minimum they feel safe and supported while they are in school, a 
place where they should have a reasonable expectation of safety and 
security. We are not talking about every moment of their life. We are 
not talking about when they are on the street alone. Those are 
situations where we worry as well. But at least--at least--we ought to 
be able to say that when a child or a young person is in school they 
will be protected from bullying or harassment or violence. That is the 
least we ought to be able to say, and we are a long way from saying 
that.

[[Page 9051]]

  Again, I will conclude by saying that I will go back to the original 
point I made, which was that every child born in this country has a 
light inside them, and there is no way the light of that child can 
shine to its full potential if they do not have the basic protections 
and the basic freedom from fear we are talking about here. No child 
should have to go through their day, no matter who they are, to being a 
victim of this kind of bullying and harassment and violence. It is the 
ultimate, or certainly one of the ways our society betrays children.
  We can put a stop to it. We can raise awareness, we can put a 
spotlight on this issue and do all we can to protect our children--our 
young people in grade school and in high schools--across America.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________