[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9732-9755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010--
                               Continued

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to discuss the 
urgent need for comprehensive immigration reform in the United States.
  Earlier today, the Senate considered a number of proposals for border 
security, and there has been extensive media attention to an 
administration proposal to dispatch substantial numbers of the National 
Guard for border security.
  The Senate and the House of Representatives wrestled with this issue 
in 2006. Each House produced a bill. At that time, I chaired the 
Judiciary Committee and managed the bill in committee and on the floor. 
The Senate bill, known as the McCain-Kennedy bill, provided for 
comprehensive immigration reform.
  The House passed a bill which dealt only with Border Patrol and 
employer verification. For reasons which need not be commented upon 
now, there was no conference and that bill languished.
  In the following year, Senator Reid, the majority leader, asked 
Senator Kennedy and me to lead an informal group to try to structure a 
comprehensive immigration reform, with the decision not to run it 
through committee, and that effort was not successful.
  As a result of the failure of Congress to act, we have seen many 
States and municipalities enact legislation to try to deal with this 
issue, in the absence of what Congress has a duty to do and should have 
been doing. Most recently, the Arizona law has produced enormous 
controversy.
  The Arizona law provides that a failure to carry immigration 
documents would be a crime and give police broad power to detain anyone 
suspected of being in the country illegally. The essential provisions 
invite racial profiling, which is highly questionable on constitutional 
grounds. Litigation is now pending to have that act--to declare it as 
being unconstitutional on its face.
  When Congress failed to legislate in 2006 and the informal group 
designated by Majority Leader Reid was unsuccessful in coming up with a 
bill, I introduced a draft bill on July 30, 2007, as reported in the 
Congressional Record at 21195, which dealt with an effort to remove the 
fugitive status from undocumented immigrants. It was my thought at the 
time if we did not get into the complex issues which had proven so 
troublesome in 2007 and earlier in 2006, that we might be able to make 
some substantial progress moving forward for comprehensive immigration 
reform.
  My thought at that time was to remove the fugitive status but not to 
provide for a path to citizenship. I made that suggestion even though 
my preference was with the Senate bill enacted the year before which 
did provide a path to citizenship. Even that path to citizenship was 
going to be long delayed. It would take at least 8 years, it was 
estimated, to clear up the backlog of pending applications for 
citizenship, and another 5 years to deal with the 12 million 
undocumented immigrants, so that there was not a whole lot of practical 
difference in eliminating the path to citizenship. That could always be 
taken up at a later time.
  But if the fugitive status was eliminated, that would bring most of 
the 12 million undocumented immigrants--or at least calculated to bring 
most of the 12 million undocumented immigrants--out of the shadows and 
identify those who were holding responsible jobs, paying taxes, and 
raising their families, in many instances with children who were 
American citizens. This approach was postulated on the obvious 
proposition that we cannot deport 12 million people. It is simply 
impossible to take them into detention and to have them housed pending 
deportation proceedings. Bringing the undocumented immigrants out of 
the shadows would provide an opportunity to identify those who were 
convicted criminals where they posed a real threat.
  At that time I visited a number of detention centers where 
undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes were held and introduced 
legislation which would have accelerated the deportation of those who 
were criminals and were a threat to our society, demonstrated by their 
prior conduct. But we continue to have the problem of undocumented 
immigrants living in the shadows, afraid of being taken into custody, 
especially in Arizona, and concerns everywhere with the prospect of the 
Arizona law being enacted other places, that they continue to be at the 
mercy of unscrupulous employers. We have enormous areas of need for 
temporary workers. That is a proposition which many of my colleagues 
have been urging and which I think needs to be acted upon.
  We have the suggestion of the so-called DREAM Act which I had at one 
time cosponsored. I later came to the view that if we cherry-picked--if 
we take the DREAM Act, if we take temporary workers, if we take the 
expansion of visas, which is necessary when so many people want to come 
to this country who would be very productive in our high-tech society--
Ph.D.s, highly educated individuals--that if we move along any of those 
lines and cherry-picked, it would take away a lot of the impetus for 
the notion to have comprehensive immigration reform.
  So I continue to believe it is not desirable, not advisable to 
cherry-pick, even though some of those individual items may be very 
meritorious on their own.
  In light of what has happened in Arizona and in light of what the 
administration is proposing on the use of the National Guard, it is my 
view it is more imperative than ever that the Congress face up to its 
responsibility, tackle this issue, notwithstanding the political 
pitfalls, and to deal with it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my prepared 
statement be printed in the Congressional Record as if read in full, 
and the abbreviated statement I made on July 30, 2007, be printed in 
the Record since these two statements more comprehensively summarize my 
views on this subject.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Statement of Senator Arlen Specter on the Need for Comprehensive 
                           Immigration Reform

       Mr. President, I have sought recognition to address 
     comprehensive immigration reform. I am fully committed to 
     working with the Obama Administration, and a bipartisan group 
     of Senators, to enact a comprehensive immigration reform law 
     that improves our economy, reunites families, and strengthens 
     our borders.
       I have long supported comprehensive immigration reform. As 
     Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress, I 
     worked closely with Senator Kennedy on, and cosponsored, the 
     bi-partisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. In 
     the

[[Page 9733]]

     110th Congress, I continued to work with Senator Kennedy to 
     construct a bi-partisan agreement, called ``the Grand 
     Bargain,'' to achieve this much needed reform. Our efforts 
     resulted in the introduction of the Comprehensive Immigration 
     Reform Act of 2007. Both bills fell prey to partisan 
     politics.
       We must renew our efforts. The immigration system in the 
     United States is inadequate to meet the needs of our country 
     in the 21st century. An insufficient number of visas are made 
     available to meet the changing needs of the U.S. economy and 
     labor market. Eligible family members are forced to wait for 
     years--some for decades--to be reunited with families living 
     in the United States. An overburdened system unfairly delays 
     the integration of immigrants who want to become U.S. 
     citizens. Unscrupulous employers who exploit undocumented 
     immigrant workers undercut the law-abiding American 
     businesses and harm all workers. Finally, as we all know too 
     well, the billions of dollars spent on enforcement-only 
     initiatives in the past have done little to stop the flow of 
     unauthorized immigrants into our country.
       Much work needs to be done. One end of the political 
     spectrum will criticize us for creating a path to citizenship 
     for those immigrants who entered without authorization, and 
     those on the other end of the political spectrum will 
     criticize us for not being sufficiently compassionate. But we 
     have a public duty, indeed a moral imperative, to come to 
     grips with this issue. We are a nation that throughout its 
     history has welcomed and been made richer by immigrants. Our 
     country was built on the contributions of hard working and 
     ambitious immigrants, like my father Harry, who emigrated 
     from Russia in 1911. The path to American citizenship is a 
     path my father had and others today deserve as well. The time 
     for comprehensive immigration reform is now.
       The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (or 
     DREAM) Act amends the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
     Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 by eliminating the 
     restriction on state provision of postsecondary educational 
     benefits to unauthorized aliens by allowing unauthorized 
     aliens to apply to adjust their status. The bill enables 
     eligible unauthorized students to adjust to conditional 
     permanent resident status provided the student: (1) entered 
     the United States before his or her 16th birthday and has 
     been present in the United States for at least five years 
     immediately preceding enactment of the bill; (2) demonstrates 
     good moral character; (3) is not inadmissible or deportable 
     under specified grounds of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act; (4) at the time of application, has been admitted to an 
     institution of higher education or has earned a high school 
     or equivalent diploma; (5) from the age of 16 and older, has 
     never been under a final order of exclusion, deportation, or 
     removal; and (6) was under age 35 on the date of this bill's 
     enactment.
       During the 108th Congress, I cosponsored a similar DREAM 
     Act sponsored by Senator Hatch and cosponsored by Senator 
     Durbin. During the 109th and 110th Congresses, I included 
     provisions of the DREAM Act in the comprehensive immigration 
     reform bill that I championed on the Senate Floor because it 
     is one side of an important part of the need for reform. 
     Another side of that need is to enhance border security and 
     tamp down on cartel violence along our Southern border. I 
     voted against cloture on a motion to proceed to the DREAM Act 
     in 2007 because I thought passing the bill would undermine 
     the pressing need to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform. 
     In explaining my vote, I said:

       I believe that the DREAM Act is a good act, and I believe 
     that its purposes are beneficial. I think it ought to be 
     enacted. But I have grave reservations about seeing a part of 
     comprehensive immigration reform go forward because it 
     weakens our position to get a comprehensive bill.
       Right now, we are witnessing a national disaster, a 
     governmental disaster, as States and counties and cities and 
     townships and boroughs and municipalities--every level of 
     government--are legislating on immigration because the 
     Congress of the United States is derelict in its duty to 
     proceed.
       We passed an immigration bill out of both Houses last year 
     [2006]. It was not conferenced. It was a disgrace that we 
     couldn't get the people's business done. We were unsuccessful 
     in June in trying to pass an immigration bill. I think we 
     ought to be going back to it. I have discussed it with my 
     colleagues.
       I had proposed a modification to the bill defeated in June, 
     which, much as I dislike it, would not have granted 
     citizenship as part of the bill, but would have removed 
     fugitive status only. That means someone could not be 
     arrested if the only violation was being in the country 
     illegally. That would eliminate the opportunity for 
     unscrupulous employers to blackmail employees with squalid 
     living conditions and low wages, and it would enable people 
     to come out of the shadows, to register within a year.
       We cannot support 12 to 20 million undocumented immigrants, 
     but we could deport the criminal element if we could 
     segregate those who would be granted amnesty only.
       I believe we ought to proceed with hearings in the 
     Judiciary Committee. We ought to set up legislation. If we 
     cannot act this year because of the appropriations logjam, we 
     will have time in late January. But as reluctant as I am to 
     oppose this excellent idea of the Senator from Illinois, I do 
     not think we ought to cherry-pick.
       It would take the pressure off of comprehensive immigration 
     reform, which is the responsibility of the Federal 
     Government. We ought to act on it, and we ought to act on it 
     now.i
       Mr. President, in the ensuing years the need for 
     comprehensive immigration reform has become increasingly 
     dire. On Friday, April 23, 2010, Arizona enacted a law that, 
     according to the New York Times, ``would make the failure to 
     carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad 
     power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country 
     illegally.''ii The text of the law provides: ``For 
     any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or 
     agency of this State or a county, city, town or other 
     political subdivision of this State where reasonable 
     suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is 
     unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt 
     shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration 
     status of the person.''iii Lawmakers in other 
     States, including Pennsylvania and Maryland, introduced 
     companion measures.
       On April 27, 2010, I questioned Department of Homeland 
     Security Secretary Janet Napolitano about the new Arizona 
     law. I noted that the failure of Congress to enact 
     comprehensive immigration reform led Arizona to legislate 
     ``in a way which has drawn a lot of questions, a lot of 
     criticism.''iv I explained that the new Arizona 
     provisions appear to create ``a significant risk of racial 
     profiling.''v After noting that Secretary 
     Napolitano is the immediate-past Governor of Arizona, I noted 
     that ``the message sent from Arizona was that movement needs 
     to occur that this issue should not be allowed to 
     languish.''vi Secretary Napolitano replied, ``I 
     think there are a lot of issues. If this law goes into 
     effect--and, again, the effective date is not until 90 days 
     after the session ends. But if it goes into effect, I think 
     there are a lot of questions about what the real impacts on 
     the street will be, and they are unanswerable right 
     now.''vii She went on to testify: ``I think there 
     is a lot of cause for concern in a lot of ways on this bill 
     and what its impacts would be if it is to actually go into 
     effect. And I think it signals a frustration with the failure 
     of the Congress to move. I will work with any Member of the 
     Congress and have been working with several Members of the 
     Congress on the actual language about what a bipartisan bill 
     could and should contain.''viii When pressed about 
     the potential for ``racial profiling and other 
     unconstitutional aspects of the Arizona law,''ix 
     Secretary Napolitano said, ``Well, I think the Department of 
     Justice, Senator, is actually looking at the law as to 
     whether it is susceptible to challenge, either facially or 
     later on as applied, under several different legal theories. 
     And I, quite frankly, do not know what the status of their 
     thinking is right now.''x
       It turns out she was right. On Thursday, May 27, 2010, 
     Nathan Koppel of the Wall Street Journal reported that the 
     Department of Justice was ``Likely to Sue Over Arizona 
     Immigration Law.''xi According to the Journal, 
     Attorney General Holder ``met with big-city police chiefs who 
     are troubled by the Arizona law, which makes it a state crime 
     to be in the U.S. illegally and can require police to 
     question certain people about their immigration status.''
       Mr. President, I think it is high time for the United 
     States Senate and House of Representatives to pass 
     comprehensive immigration reform to avert potentially 
     unconstitutional state laws in this matter of national 
     significance. We should take up Secretary Napolitano's offer 
     to help us draft a bipartisan bill that can stand bicameral 
     scrutiny. And we should do so now. I wrote President Obama on 
     April 15, 2010 to convey my willingness to press for reform 
     this year and I wrote to Majority Leader Reid on April 28, 
     2010, to convey the same message out of a strong conviction 
     that comprehensive immigration reform must be done now.


                                endnotes

       i153 Cong. Rec. S13300-02, *S13305 2007 WL 
     3101493 (Cong. Rec.) Oct. 24, 2007.
       iiRandal C. Archibold, Arizona Enacts Stringent 
     Law on Immigration, New York Times, Apr. 23, 2010.
       iiiSB 1070, Sec. 11-1051 (available online at: 
     http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf).
       ivSenate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 
     ``Department of Homeland Security Oversight'' Tr. at 94, Apr. 
     27, 2010.
       vId. at 95.
       viId.
       viiId. at 95-96.
       viiiId. at 96.
       ixId. at 96-97.
       x Id. at 97.
       xiNathan Koppel, DOJ Likely to Sue Over Arizona 
     Immigration Law, Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2010.
                                  ____


                  Immigration--(Senate--July 30, 2007)

       Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I begin by thanking the staff 
     for staying a few extra minutes to enable me to come back to 
     the floor to make a short statement.
       I have sought recognition to speak about a revised reform 
     bill on immigration. In the

[[Page 9734]]

     course of the past 3 years, the Senate has spent a great deal 
     of time on trying to reform our immigration system: to begin 
     to fix the broken borders; to add more Border Patrols; to 
     undertake some necessary fencing; to add drones; to undertake 
     employer verification by utilizing identification which now 
     can provide, with certainty, whether an immigrant is legal or 
     illegal; to take care of a guest worker program to fill 
     employment needs in the United States; and to deal with the 
     12 million undocumented immigrants.
       During the 109th Congress, when I chaired the Judiciary 
     Committee, we reported out a bill. It came to the floor, and 
     after considerable debate it was passed. The U.S. House of 
     Representatives passed legislation directed only at border 
     patrol and employer verification, and for a variety of 
     reasons we could not reconcile the bills and enact 
     legislation.
       This year a different procedure was undertaken: to have a 
     group of Senators who had been deeply involved in the issue 
     before craft a bill. It did not go through committee, and, as 
     I said earlier on the floor, I think it probably was a 
     mistake because the committee action of hearings and markups 
     and refinement works out a lot of problems. At any rate, as 
     we all know, after extensive debate, the bill went down. We 
     could not get cloture to proceed, and it was defeated.
       It was defeated for a number of reasons. But I believe the 
     immigration issue is one of great national concern--great 
     importance--and ought to be revisited by the Congress and 
     that ought to be done at as early a time as possible.
       We have a very serious problem with people coming across 
     our borders--a criminal element, and a potential terrorist 
     element. The rule of law is broken by people who come here in 
     violation of our laws. We have continuing problems from the 
     1986 legislation that employer verification is not realistic 
     because there is no positive way of identification.
       No matter how high the borders or the value of border 
     patrol, it is not possible to eliminate illegal immigration 
     if the magnet is present. The legislation I will be putting 
     in as part of the Record at the conclusion of my remarks is a 
     draft of suggested proposals to be considered by the Senate. 
     There are two major changes which have been undertaken.
       Much as I dislike to, I have eliminated the automatic path 
     to citizenship but instead deal with the fugitive status of 
     the undocumented immigrants, the 12 million, and eliminate 
     that fugitive status. Whether it is categorized as permanent 
     legal resident or some other category, as a matter of 
     nomenclature it can be worked out.
       But the principal concern has not been the citizenship, 
     although it is a desirable factor to try to integrate the 12 
     million into our society. But the principal concern has been 
     that when an undocumented illegal immigrant sees a policeman 
     on the street, there is fear of apprehension and being 
     rounded up and deported, or the undocumented illegal is at 
     the mercy of an unscrupulous employer who will take advantage 
     of them and they cannot report to the police the treatment or 
     a violation of law by an employer because they are fearful of 
     being arrested and deported. In many places you cannot rent 
     an apartment or undertake other activities. So I think 
     eliminating the fugitive status is a major improvement.
       The other significant change is to not tamper with or 
     change family unification but to leave it as it is now. We 
     had come up with, with the bill which was defeated, an 
     elaborate point system for immigration. It was our best 
     effort but, candidly, it turned out to be half-baked. It did 
     not go through the hearing process to hear from experts. It 
     did not have that kind of refinement and raised a lot of 
     problems. That could be revisited at a later date. I have 
     worked with the so- called interest groups representing 
     immigration interests and have had what I consider to be a 
     relatively good response.
       I do not want to characterize it or put words in anybody's 
     mouth. There is a certain reluctance to make any more 
     concessions because concessions were made last year and the 
     bottom fell out. So they made an inquiry, understandably so, 
     that there be some realistic chance of getting the bill 
     passed if they are to give up a path to citizenship.
       I have undertaken to talk to many of my colleagues, 
     Senators who opposed the bill, to get a sense from them as to 
     whether, with the automatic path to citizenship out, and 
     dealing only with the fugitive status, that there might be 
     some greater willingness to find an accommodation and deal 
     with the issues.
       With respect to citizenship, even under the legislation 
     that was defeated, there would not be an opportunity for 
     citizenship until at least 8 years have passed, to take care 
     of the backlog, and then another 5 years to work out the 12 
     million undocumented immigrants. So the citizenship, even 
     under the bill which was defeated, was not something which 
     was going to be imminent.
       We have seen local governments and State governments trying 
     to deal with the issue. Reports are more than 100 laws have 
     been passed and ordinances enacted which would deal with the 
     immigration problem. They cannot do it on a sensible basis. 
     Last week the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of 
     Pennsylvania handed down an opinion that the city of 
     Hazelton, notwithstanding the understandable efforts by the 
     mayor, program was not constitutional; that under our laws, 
     the answer has to come from the Congress.
       We have seen a lot of unrest on the issue. The front page 
     of the Washington Post the day before yesterday had a report 
     about groups of immigrants feeling that they had been 
     mistreated. There was an uneasiness on all sides, uneasiness 
     by people who are angry about the violation of our borders, 
     by immigrants who think they are not being fairly treated, 
     and a grave concern about the availability of workers on our 
     farms across America, concerns of the hotel industry and 
     landscapers and restaurateurs about the adequacy of our labor 
     force. So there is no doubt that this is a very significant 
     issue.
       Last week I circulated to my 99 colleagues a letter, and 
     one page summarizing the study bill--I will call it a study 
     bill.
       I ask unanimous consent that the text of the draft proposal 
     and the one-page letter circulated to all other Senators be 
     printed in the Record.
       The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
       (See exhibit 1.)
       Mr. SPECTER. In conclusion, I emphasize that I am inviting 
     suggestions and comments for improving the bill. The one view 
     that I do have, very strongly, is that it is our pay grade to 
     deal with this issue. Only the Congress can deal with the 
     immigration problem, and it is a matter of tremendous 
     importance that we do so. We obviously cannot satisfy 
     everyone, but I invite analysis, criticism, and modification.
       I see my distinguished colleague from Vermont, one of my 
     distinguished colleagues from Vermont, awaiting recognition.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                                   Washington, DC.
       Dear     : I believe it is possible to enact comprehensive 
     immigration reform in this Congress, perhaps even in this 
     calendar year, if we make two significant changes in the bill 
     we recently had on the floor.
       First, a new bill should eliminate the automatic path to 
     citizenship for the approximately 12 million undocumented 
     immigrants. Instead, we should just eliminate the fugitive 
     status for the 12 million so that they would not be fearful 
     every time they see a policeman, be protected from 
     unscrupulous employers who threaten to turn them in if they 
     don't do the employer's bidding, and be free to do things 
     like rent apartments in cities which now preclude that. From 
     soundings I have taken from many senators, that should take 
     the teeth out of the amnesty argument, which was the 
     principal reason for the defeat of the last bill.
       Second, we should not tamper with the current provisions on 
     family unity with the elaborate point system which was 
     insufficiently thought through. If that is to be ultimately 
     accomplished, we need hearings and a more thoughtful 
     approach.
       Third, although not indispensable, I believe we should 
     provide more green cards to assist the hitech community.
       The enclosed draft bill covers these three changes and also 
     includes the guest worker program, the increased border 
     security and enhanced employer verification in the last bill.
       Because it will be easier to get real border security if we 
     deal with the 12 million undocumented immigrants, I think 
     this proposal presents an alternate and plausible path to 
     achieve comprehensive immigration reform now.
       I have discussed this proposal with the senators who were 
     part of the core negotiating group and with the relevant 
     interest groups and have received a generally favorable 
     response and, in many cases, an enthusiastic response. 
     Similarly, in discussing the proposed bill with the 
     dissenters, I have heard no strenuous adverse response so I 
     believe it is worthy of a repeat effort. Although the defeat 
     of the bill on the Senate floor was a major disappointment, I 
     think that we proponents of comprehensive immigration reform 
     have significant momentum and these changes, perhaps 
     supplemented by other modifications, could put us over the 
     top.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Arlen Specter.

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. In the absence of any other Senator 
seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Daily Digest clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, we are coming up to a critical deadline 
this week once again that touches millions of families across our 
country who don't have a job, not because they

[[Page 9735]]

don't want to work but because they have not been able to find one in 
the hardest hit economy since the Great Depression. Even though things 
are turning around, we have millions of people yet to be able to find a 
job, to be able to care for their families and keep a roof over their 
heads.
  Twice this year already, the Congress has missed deadlines for 
extending unemployment benefits because of Republican obstructionism, 
basically telling millions of Americans: Tough.
  We are now in a situation where today we will offer a temporary 
extension to be able to continue unemployment benefits and help with 
health care, as well as support for our doctors whom we are all 
concerned about maintaining their Medicare payments, and we will ask 
for an extension. I hope the answer, again, is not: Tough. That is what 
I am very hopeful of.
  Today there are 15.3 million Americans who have lost their jobs 
through no fault of their own, and they rely on an unemployment 
insurance system to pay the bills and put food on the table. We have 
also heard from economists that this is an important way of keeping 
dollars in the economy because when someone is out of work and they 
have to be able to buy food and put gas in the car and be able to do 
the other basics, it keeps money in the economy so that when someone 
gets an unemployment check, they are spending it because they have to 
spend it, and that is part of what is a stimulus to the economy.
  People are trying to find work and trying to support their families 
during tough times. They want to be working, as I said. They are 
pounding the pavement every day. They are putting in applications every 
day. This is not their fault. They have worked all their lives. Many of 
them find themselves, having worked for companies for 20 or 30 years, 
now in their fifties and they have played by the rules and they are 
finding that because of what has happened in a global economy and 
unfair trade rules and what has happened on a lot of different fronts, 
they don't have a job. So they are asking that we continue to 
understand that, understand the real world for millions of people.
  We have 15.3 million people who have lost their jobs and who are 
receiving assistance. That doesn't count the people who are no longer 
receiving any kind of help or are working one, two, three part-time 
jobs just to try to figure out how to make it, and, of course, those 
jobs don't provide health insurance. As we transition to help them, we 
are not yet there to be able to help those families.
  When President Obama and when all of us as Democrats took office last 
year, we saw at that time a loss of almost 800,000 jobs a month. We 
have been laser-focused on jobs in the Recovery Act. We have been 
laser-focused on doing everything we can, and continue to do that. It 
is critical that we pass a small business bill to create capital for 
our small businesses that have been hit.
  We have another bill dealing with innovation, and the bill that will 
be coming to us that extends unemployment is a major jobs bill, and we 
are continuing to focus on that. With what we have already done, we 
have now gone from almost 800,000 jobs a month being lost when the 
President first took office, to moving to that being about zero at the 
end of the year, to being about 250,000 now new jobs being created. 
That is good. It is not enough. We know that. It is not nearly enough, 
but at least we have turned the ship around. At least we are not 
continuing to go down, down, down as we did with the last 
administration for 8 years when we lost 6 million manufacturing jobs 
alone.
  So we are turning it around. It takes time. It takes way too much 
time. I am very impatient about that because I know the best thing we 
can do to help anyone who doesn't have a job in my State is to make 
sure they can get a job. Folks in my State and folks in Illinois want 
to work. They know how to work. They are good at working. It is not 
their fault that there are six people looking for every job that is 
available right now. But the reality is, because of that, people are 
looking to us to understand what is going on in their lives, what they 
are facing in terms of enormous pressures just to keep their heads a 
little bit above water. They are asking us to extend unemployment 
benefits as this economy turns around, and understand.
  So we come now to another day of reckoning. We have gone through this 
before. I remember last November when there was a filibuster for--I 
believe it was 4 weeks--on extending unemployment benefits, and then 
everybody voted for it. After creating tremendous stress in the lives 
of families who were trying to figure out what was going on, after 4 
weeks of filibustering, then we finally saw people voting for it.
  We have seen various versions of obstruction on the floor of the 
Senate. I hope today is different. I hope today people are going to say 
they understand that we need to extend for 30 days if we are not able 
to complete the jobs bill, depending on what happens if it comes over 
from the House. I hope we will be able to do that.
  If there is a continual effort to block the 1-year extension, 1.2 
million Americans will lose help right now for themselves and their 
families while they are looking for work, and over 300,000 people in my 
great State of Michigan. As I said, these are people who are doing 
everything we have asked them to do.
  Let me just share some of the e-mails and letters I get, and I get 
many of those.
  I get many of those. Let me share this from Rick Allegan, who wrote:

       I will not be able to take care of my family at all if 
     benefit extensions are cut. After being laid off, I have not 
     even been able to land a job at local restaurants or fast 
     food places. I am very grateful for these extensions--the 
     help the State is giving me is allowing my children to eat 
     and my family to stay afloat. Please do not take [this help] 
     away. I am confident I will land a job and be back to work. 
     Until then, I just don't want to worry about where I am going 
     to get funds [I need]. I am trying very hard to find work.

  Mr. President, I am sure that is true.
  Clinton from Battle Creek wrote:

       I am a 56-year-old unemployed worker in Michigan. I lost my 
     job at the end of 2008, after a 38-year career in the auto 
     repair industry. When I got laid off, I took advantage of 
     Michigan's No Worker Left Behind program, and I am currently 
     in college working toward a degree in human services. To that 
     end, I work with men at the Calhoun County Jail, and I am a 
     mentor at the newly formed ``Mentor House'' for newly 
     released prisoners here in Battle Creek. When I finish my 
     education, I will be gainfully employed and an asset to my 
     community. To this end, also let me say that if I lose my 
     unemployment benefits, I may not be able to finish college, 
     and we could also lose our home because of the loss of 
     income. Needless to say, we don't want either of those things 
     to happen. Thank you very much for all you do, as I am truly 
     grateful as an American citizen to have all that we are 
     afforded.

  That is somebody who is doing what we told him to do--go back and get 
retrained. But he is only able to do that because of a temporary safety 
net that will help while that is going on. The rug could be pulled out 
from under him and his family.
  Christopher from Three Rivers said this:

       I have been unemployed for 13 months and some days.
       I have never, ever been unemployed this long--not ever. And 
     it's astoundingly difficult to find anything--more or less 
     even receive a reply to an inquiry. I am registered with no 
     fewer than four temp offices and have been for some months, 
     and nothing--not a single call, even though they assure me 
     they are in fact looking for me.
       And so I do all I can, and daily, trying not to lose hope. 
     But what truly appalls and galls me is Congress' attitude 
     that all is well and the economy is getting better, so, no, 
     there won't be any further extensions of unemployment 
     [insurance].
       And let's be clear about something: I detest this. I can't 
     stand living on barely anything, but to then have it implied 
     that I somehow enjoy doing this and thus am lazy and enjoy 
     living on unemployment is quite offensive.

  Mr. President, that is offensive to millions of Americans.
  He says:

       I can assure you that I do not, and I have been doing 
     everything in my ability to find work.

  People want to work. People have worked their whole lives. It is not 
their fault that we find ourselves in this situation. It is not their 
fault that there was recklessness on Wall Street that led to a collapse 
of financial markets,

[[Page 9736]]

that closed down credit, that caused small businesses not to be able to 
get loans to be able to keep business going or manufacturers to be able 
to get the support they needed. It is not the fault of the American 
people. It is not the fault of a breadwinner who can no longer bring 
home the bread.
  We have had a collapse on a number of levels. We are rebuilding 
again. Things are turning around, as slow as it is. The unemployment 
rate in Michigan is coming down. That is a good thing, but it is not 
fast enough for the people whom we represent who need temporary help 
until that job is available, until they are able to get that community 
college degree, to be able to get that training for the new job we have 
all told them they should go get. Go get retraining, we say. But how do 
you put food on the table and pay for a roof over your family's head in 
the meantime? We have done that through unemployment benefits that 
allow people to be able to become economically independent again.
  That is what we are talking about here--temporary help. That 
temporary help has gone on longer than any of us would like to have it 
go on. No one is more concerned about having to come to the floor and 
talk about extending unemployment benefits, but the reality is, for 
Americans, this is not their fault. We have to figure out how we can 
continue to support them in their efforts to look for work, to be able 
to go back to school so they can, in fact, continue their lives with 
their families, be productive citizens, and be able to continue to 
contribute to this great country.
  We also know we have millions of Americans who rely on help with 
health care. We said to them years ago: If you leave your job or lose 
your job, you can continue your health care benefits. The problem is 
that it is so expensive when you have to pay both the employer 
contribution and the employee contribution, most people haven't been 
able to do it.
  Last year, in the Recovery Act, we did something about that. We said 
we would help so that people could continue their health insurance in 
COBRA. That expires as well. Just as those jobs have not been there, 
until we fully see a health reform bill in place, which will take time, 
as we know, we also need to continue to help with health care.
  This bill that will be coming in front of us, the American Jobs and 
Closing Tax Loopholes Act, also includes a very important 1-year fix--
actually, it is beyond 1 year now; it will include multiple years--to 
fix what has been a drastic cut in reimbursements to doctors, a cut 
that, if it were allowed to happen, would force many doctors' offices 
to stop seeing Medicare families and military families.
  As you know, I believe the payment formula that has been in place and 
the cuts that have been scheduled for many years should be completely 
eliminated and we should completely change the system, which is called 
SGR. But until we can get to that point--and I hope it is very soon--we 
need to make sure doctors have confidence that those drastic cuts will 
not happen and that seniors and military families know cuts won't 
happen and that they are going to be able to continue to see their 
doctor.
  It is critical right now that we work together today to make sure we 
are allowing these important policies--the help for people who have 
lost their jobs, whether it be health care or unemployment insurance, 
the ability to continue to provide the kinds of Medicare payments so 
seniors can see their doctors--it is critical that we don't let that 
lapse. We will have an opportunity on the floor today to continue that 
either temporarily or permanently. Obviously, I would like to see the 
full jobs bill passed today and see this completed at least until the 
end of this year. If that is not possible, it is not the fault of the 
people who don't have jobs, so I don't know why they should be the ones 
who are hurt because of it.
  I am very hopeful that one way or the other we are going to let 
people in this country know that as we focus on jobs--which is the best 
thing we can do, and it is what everybody wants--and continue to turn 
this economy around, as we continue to see jobs being created in the 
private sector, we will not forget the people who have gotten caught in 
this economic tsunami through no fault of their own.
  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. BURR. 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. BURR. Mr. President, I came to the floor to call up what I 
thought was a very important amendment. I understand the majority is 
not letting controversial amendments come up now, so I will not call it 
up and put the Chair on the spot of having to object. But I do want to 
take the opportunity to speak on my amendment. My hope is, if we 
conclude all germane amendments, I will have the opportunity, even if 
there is a limited amount of time to talk about them or debate them, 
that we would at least have a vote on them, because I think not to have 
a vote is to ignore the people we are representing.
  I intended to call up my amendment that proposes the Secretary of the 
Veterans' Administration have the authority to take any savings 
realized during the bid process on major construction projects and use 
it to fund other authorized construction projects within the VA; in 
other words, take care of providing the facilities our veterans need 
for the delivery of health care they have so richly deserved.
  Because of a bad economy, the VA has actually been able to strike 
unbelievable deals with the projects they had before them. From that, 
the best estimate I have is that the VA has saved $103 million on 12 
projects. Let me say that again. The VA has saved $103 million on 12 
projects.
  As my colleagues all know, in section 901 of this bill, it proposes 
taking $67 million from the construction projects for medical 
facilities and maintenance of VA facilities and to dump that $67 
million into a thing we call the Filipino Equity Fund.
  Let me say that again, because I think most people listening probably 
do not believe what I said. We are going to take $67 million out of the 
VA construction and maintenance fund that we were able to save because 
of good work on contracting on 12 projects, and we are going to shift 
$67 million over to the Filipino Equity Fund.
  On the face you would say, well, if it is going to Filipino Equity 
Fund, it is not going to U.S. veterans. You are right. It is not going 
to U.S. veterans.
  Money appropriated by this Congress for the construction and the 
maintenance of medical facilities, hospitals, outpatient clinics, 
maintenance of those facilities, we are going to shift over to the 
Filipino Equity Fund. I will talk more a little bit later about the 
Filipino Equity Fund.
  First and foremost, the money saved in the bid process was 
appropriated to fund major construction projects within the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. We are talking about hospital construction, 
renovation, cemetery construction, and other capital improvements. Let 
me assure you the President knows this. The needs are vast.
  Let me quote from last year's Senate MILCON Appropriations report:

       The committee remains concerned that the Department has a 
     significant problem with unfunded liability on its existing 
     major construction projects. In fiscal year 2010 [this one] 
     the Department will have 21 partially funded projects with a 
     cumulative future cost of nearly $4.5 billion.

  Let me say that again: In this report from this Congress about the 
2010 budget, we criticized the Veterans' Administration because they 
had 21 partially funded projects with a cumulative future cost of $4.5 
billion. All of a sudden, this year, because of a down economy and our 
ability to negotiate better deals, we have a surplus in the account 
where we have saved $103 million. And what are we going to do? We are 
going to shift it all over to the Filipino Equity Fund, not put it 
toward $4.5 billion worth of identified shortfalls in existing projects 
that have already been started.

[[Page 9737]]

  We are not talking about the ones on the list that might go to the 
Presiding Officer's State or to my State of North Carolina, where I 
have got the highest percentage of veteran retirees as a percentage of 
anywhere in the country. Let me assure you, we have got needs today 
there. If you want to do something with that $103 million, I can put 
outpatient clinics in North Carolina where our veterans will receive 
real health care that they deserve and, more importantly, they earned 
because of their service to the country. But, no, $67 million of it is 
going outside of the Veterans' Administration and is going to the 
Filipino Equity Fund.
  Let me also quote from a prominent veterans organization, the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, whose witness testified at the committee's 
February budget hearing.

       The challenge for VA is there are still numerous projects 
     that need to be carried out, and the current backlog of 
     partially funded projects is too large. This means that the 
     VA is going to continue to require significant appropriations 
     for the major and minor construction accounts.

  That is one of the veterans service organizations, the organization 
that represents veterans all over this country, warning us: You know 
what. There are so many projects out there, there is not enough funding 
to go around. Why are we doing this?
  Second, given the acknowledged need I have described, it makes no 
sense to remove the funds from an account expressly dedicated to 
meeting the needs of that account. There is no Member of the Senate who 
can tell me that VA construction does not need this $103 million. But 
we are going to shift it. We are going to do that because we can.
  Congress provides taxpayer dollars for major construction projects. 
These dollars should remain for that purpose. Why? Because the need 
exists. If not, taxpayers are going to have to pay for it with 
additional taxpayer money.
  Third, we have a massive deficit. I am not sure many Members of the 
Senate will acknowledge it. We have a massive deficit, and hard choices 
have to be made with limited resources. The choice here is what do you 
do with $67 million. This $67 million has been identified as savings 
within the VA construction budget. What do you do with it?
  Well, the amendment I would have offered--and, again, I wish I could 
call it up so my colleagues could debate it with me and vote on it, but 
it is contentious. I understand. I never thought it would be 
contentious to try to protect what our veterans are due. I never 
thought it would be contentious that if you found somebody taking money 
and putting it where the Senate did not authorize it to be that that 
was contentious. I thought that is why we were here. I thought that is 
called oversight.
  Well, the amendment I would have offered proposes that we keep the 
money to meet the needs Congress intended it for: to build hospitals, 
for cemetery construction, for major renovation of VA facilities.
  I have also filed an amendment proposing to fund the provisions of 
the family caregiver law the President just signed into law. I am not 
going to call it up. But my colleague, the Presiding Officer, knows; he 
sits on the VA Committee with me.
  The President signed into law a great bill. It is to allow a family 
member of an injured servicemember to be their advocate, those 1,500-
plus severely injured Americans with a traumatic brain injury who need 
an advocate fighting for their rehabilitation, because, quite simply, 
the system does not fight for them.
  They could not leave their job and lose their salary because they 
lost their health care. And the President saw the wisdom in a bill that 
we passed out of the Veterans Affairs Committee. It is going to be 
costly, about $4 billion over 10 years, to give a financial stipend to 
that family member, a financial stipend that is no different than we 
would have paid some stranger off the street to come in and take care 
of that servicemember.
  Now we are going to give the same amount of money to that spouse or 
that father or that mother. And, oh, by the way, we also provide them 
access to TRICARE health care coverage that we provide our soldiers and 
their families.
  That is about $4.2 trillion. If you want to use $67 million for 
something that Congress didn't appropriate it for, which is 
construction, then let's use the $67 million to offset the funding of 
the caregiver program, something that is acknowledged that we need and, 
more importantly, we understand exactly what the impact is on our 
service personnel.
  The question my amendment presents is, Is providing additional 
resources for veterans so that they have modern medical facilities to 
receive care a higher priority than ensuring that Filipino veterans get 
a pension benefit? It is as simple as that. There is no way one can 
spin this any differently. We are either going to give Filipinos a 
pension benefit or we are going to supply our veterans with the health 
care infrastructure they need and, more importantly, deserve.
  Irrespective of where we come down on the Philippine issue--and I 
will provide my views on that momentarily--the ultimate issue is one of 
making tough decisions, tough choices. I personally don't think this is 
one of those. I respect my colleagues who believe otherwise.
  Two years ago, I took this floor to argue against establishing this 
special pension for Filipino veterans who fought under U.S. command 
during World War II. My argument was based on several factors. First, I 
didn't believe it was the right priority given the other needs that 
existed in our veterans community. Nothing has changed. There is a 
greater need in our veterans community today than there was 2 years ago 
when I argued the need on behalf of our veterans versus Filipino 
veterans.
  Second, I don't think it is appropriate to pay a benefit that is not 
adjusted for the different standards of living that exist between the 
Philippines and the United States. Example: Pensions in the United 
States for veterans achieve an income of 10 percent above the poverty 
level. The special pension we are talking about during this debate--and 
the debate 2 years ago--got Filipino veterans to 1,400 percent above 
Filipino poverty: U.S. veterans, 10 percent above poverty; Filipino 
veterans, 1,400 percent above the poverty line. We should have called 
this the Filipino millionaires club.
  Finally, I don't think these benefits were ever promised in the first 
place. I will not get into the exhaustive debate the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and I had 2 years ago. I don't remember a time 
where anybody told me anything I said was not factual or suggested it 
was wrong. I made a tremendous case that in the 1930s, these veterans 
were organized to fight for the soon-to-be-independent Philippine 
State. They were called under U.S. command in defense of their own 
homeland.
  Let me say that again. They were called under our command to defend 
their own homeland. The view of the Congress immediately following the 
war was that care of these veterans was a shared responsibility. The 
United States provided a limited array of benefits for Filipino 
veterans, including disability pay for service injuries, new hospitals, 
which we later donated to the Philippines, and medical supply 
donations.
  That was the Congress immediately following the war, the decision 
this body made when this was a fresh remembrance. It was never expected 
that the United States would provide the same benefits to Filipino 
veterans as we do for U.S. veterans.
  Here is a quote from 1946 made by then-Senate Appropriations 
Committee chairman Carl Hayden:

       [N]o one could be found who would assert that it was ever 
     the clear intention of Congress that such benefits as are 
     granted under . . . the GI bill of rights--should be extended 
     to the soldiers of the Philippine Army. There is nothing in 
     the text of any laws enacted by Congress for the benefit of 
     veterans to indicate such intent.

  Again, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 1946, 
commenting on whether we were committed, whether we had promised, 
whether we had insinuated.

[[Page 9738]]

  The shared responsibility for Filipino veterans was a view that held 
across Republican and Democratic administrations for six decades. 
Proposed pension benefits for Filipino veterans was opposed by every 
administration in Congress since 1946 up until 2008 when all of a 
sudden we created the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.
  Here are some facts surrounding the creation of the fund and why I am 
concerned with what we are doing today, especially on a bill that is 
meant to provide relief from recent disasters in the United States and 
to fund our troops. The Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund was 
created to make payments to Filipino veterans of World War II in 
increments of $9,000 or $15,000, depending upon citizenship. This body 
authorized the creation of the fund and appropriated $198 million to 
fund it. The fund was later officially created, and the $198 million 
was officially authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, the stimulus package.
  Remember the big bill we passed to put Americans back to work? Well, 
$198 million went to create the Filipino equity fund. I wonder if it 
created any jobs over there.
  By law, Filipino veterans were given 1 year in which to file claims 
for benefits against the fund. That 1-year period ended February 16, 
2010. February, March, April, May--we are a little over 3 months past 
the deadline for any Filipino veteran who wanted to file a claim to 
file the claim. The law also required--and this is important--that the 
Veterans' Administration submit detailed information within the 
President's budget submission on the operation of the compensation 
fund, the number of applicants, the number of eligible persons 
receiving benefits, and the amount of funds paid. I am not sure anybody 
here would be shocked to learn that we got the President's submission, 
but there wasn't a VA report in it.
  As a matter of fact, in December, when, as ranking member, my staff 
inquired with the VA what the balance of the Philippine equity fund 
was, we were well under $198 million having been allocated. That was 
the end of December. We only had 60 days left for people to actually 
process their applications before the cutoff date. I find it 
unbelievable that we would spend almost as much in the last 60 days as 
we spent in the first 10 months, as people applied for this benefit.
  There was no detailed information provided in the President's budget. 
All that was there was an estimate that the administration expected 
$188 million to be expended on submitted claims. I turn to my colleague 
from Maine, but I think the President's budget came in in February or 
early March, after the deadline. The President's budget said they are 
going to use $188 million, well short of the $198 million Congress had 
already appropriated to the Philippine equity fund. At no point in the 
intervening months since the President submitted his budget were we 
notified of a shortfall in the fund.
  We see the pattern. The pattern is the White House said there was 
enough money. We had a surplus in there. The Secretary of the VA never 
told the ranking member, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, the White House, or my staff that they were short money.
  We will take up at another time with the Secretary of the VA his 
statutory obligation to submit a report to the Congress, but now we are 
here.
  On May 7, Secretary Shinseki sent a letter to the chairman and 
ranking member of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
informing them, but not officially requesting, of a $67 million 
shortfall. Where did this come from? This is like ``Star Trek.'' Just 
out of the blue, it appears, 3\1/2\ months after the deadline for 
filing. Well, if you look at the amount of disability claim backlogs at 
the VA, you understand they don't process things very quickly, even for 
our veterans. But they have processed the Filipinos' a lot faster than 
they have ours and, more importantly, they have reached out in a 
supplemental spending bill. It is an emergency. A supplemental spending 
bill is for emergencies. How does this fit as an emergency? Tell me 
where this should not be offset? Why should the American taxpayer be 
required to go out and borrow this money?
  I apologize. It is paid for. We are stealing it from the VA. We 
probably borrowed it to give it to the VA, but now we are stealing it 
from the VA and giving it to the Philippine equity fund.
  I find it interesting that we are rushing to meet this shortfall 
without understanding how exactly we went from being under budget to 
being grossly over budget. I say ``grossly.'' We allocated $198 
million. The White House projected in February they were going to use 
$188 million. All of a sudden, we have to take another third in an 
emergency capacity to make sure they can meet the needs.
  One other point I wish to make: There is clear language authorizing 
appropriations for the Philippine equity fund. Make no mistake. There 
is authorization language, clear authorization language. I quote from 
the Recovery Act now, the stimulus package, in reference to the funding 
for the Philippine equity fund:

       It is authorized to be appropriated to the compensation 
     fund $198 million to remain available until expended to make 
     payments under this section.

  So even in the underlying bill language, if the underlying bill 
language is enacted, the VA has no legal obligation to spend it. They 
have no legal authority to spend it--let me put it that way--because 
the additional money hasn't been authorized. We authorized $198 
million. For the VA to spend more, quite frankly, they do not have the 
authority, as I read the law, and as I read the language quoted in the 
stimulus bill, the Recovery Act. This kind of oversight is what happens 
when matters are rushed through without appropriate vetting.
  This week our Nation's debt went above $13 trillion. Spending is out 
of control, and there is no end in sight. As a nation, over the next 10 
years--if we did not borrow another penny--we owe $5.4 trillion in 
interest payments to service the money we have borrowed. If we compare 
that to the entire sovereign debt of the European Union, which is $12.7 
trillion, we owe almost 50 percent of the entire sovereign debt of the 
European Union in interest payments over the next 10 years--not in 
reducing debt, servicing debt.
  Although another $67 million to add to the Filipino fund might seem 
like a drop in the bucket, I do not think it does to people in North 
Carolina: the soldiers at Fort Bragg, the marines at Camp Lejeune, the 
airmen at Seymour Johnson, the aviators at Cherry Point, the 
servicemembers who ship all the ammunition the U.S. military uses out 
of Sunny Point, the thousands of family members who rely on the health 
care and the benefits.
  We are experiencing an unemployment rate in North Carolina of 10.8 
percent. Nationally, we are at about 9.9 percent. At a time when the 
typical family in North Carolina is struggling to meet the obligations 
at the end of the month--meaning they buy what they need and not what 
they want--what does the Congress do? The Congress says the hell with 
our veterans. Let's take money we have designated and put over here for 
construction and to build cemeteries and to do maintenance for our 
veterans--let's take $67 million of it and fund this pot of money that 
even the Secretary has not justified why they need it.
  In a tough fiscal climate, tough choices must be made. I say to the 
President, I say to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we 
have been more than generous to the Philippines, to the Philippine 
veterans. But, Mr. Chairman, our needs must be met first--the needs of 
our veterans, the needs of our economy, the needs of the American 
people, the protection of the fiscal integrity of this country.
  America wakes up every day expecting us to change. Every day they 
wake up thinking: Maybe Congress will recognize the difficult financial 
situation we are in--only to see us, in a week like this, where we are 
desperately trying to borrow another $300 billion, and we claim it is 
an emergency.
  This is not an emergency. If we owe it, it can wait. If we owe it, we 
should

[[Page 9739]]

pay for it; we should not borrow it. We should not steal it from the 
VA. We should not steal it from our children and our grandchildren. We 
should not steal it from the veterans. If we owe it, let's pay for it.
  I had wished to call up this amendment. I hope before we end the 
debate on this supplemental spending bill--but I do not know--I will 
put it this way: We will, before we end this supplemental spending 
bill, have an opportunity to vote on this because I will object to 
leaving before we will. I will not hold the majority or the minority 
Members to the floor to hear me rant and rave again, I promise the 
chairman that. I have said my piece. But I hope they will show me the 
dignity of voting on it. I hope they prove to America this body still 
has rules and that we follow those rules.
  It is a germane amendment. It gets to the heart of one specific piece 
of it. Two people can disagree on whether it is an emergency. Two 
people can disagree on whether it is a priority. But I think the one 
thing we can all agree on is we can never, ever pay our veterans 
enough. There is no amount of money, there is no service, there is no 
benefit we can provide that satisfactorily takes the veterans of this 
country and thanks them appropriately. We are in this institution 
because of them, and when we do this future generations question why.
  Today, I hope my colleagues question why, and when given an 
opportunity, vote in support of my amendment and strike this from the 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, it was not my intention to rise, but 
after listening to the remarks of the Senator from North Carolina, I 
felt it obligatory that I say something to clarify the record.
  I think it is well that we review a bit of the history of World War 
II. On July 26, 1941, the President of the United States, Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt, invited the Filipinos, issued a military order, and 
said: Join our forces in the Far East. If you do, at the end of the war 
you will be entitled to, well, apply for citizenship and receive all 
the benefits of a veteran of the United States. That was a promise made 
by the President of the United States in March of 1942.
  After going through the horror of Bataan and Corregidor, the Congress 
of the United States passed a law doing exactly that: authorizing 
Filipinos who wished to be naturalized to do so; and upon 
naturalization, a receipt of citizenship, they were entitled to all the 
benefits.
  Madam President, 470,000 volunteered, and many died as we know. Most 
of the men who marched in the Bataan Death March were not Americans; 
they were Filipinos. But then, when the war ended, we did send one 
member of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to Manila to take 
applications for citizenship. Before he settled down, he was recalled 
back to Washington. The Congress of the United States, in March of 
1946, repealed that law, denying the Filipinos and reneging on the 
promise we made.
  When I took the oath as a soldier in World War II, after the oath, 
the company commander told me there are three words that are precious: 
``duty,'' ``honor,'' and ``country.'' Duty to your country, never 
dishonor the country. Show your love for your country.
  Well, in this case, it should be apparent to all of us what we did 
was not right. We made a promise. We were honor bound to those men who 
served and got wounded. The emergency is very simple: they are dying by 
the dozens each day. They are old men. Their average age is 87. They do 
not have too many months left in their lives. That is why it is in this 
supplemental bill. If we wait another year, who knows how many will be 
left?
  I just wanted the record to be clear this is a matter of honor. We 
should uphold our promises. We are complaining to other countries when 
they violate a little portion of a treaty. This was a promise made by 
Congress and the President of the United States, and we reneged soon 
after the war. It is so obvious. Would we have done that to other 
countries?
  Madam President, I am glad it is not coming up for a vote because I 
think it would be a sad day if we voted it down.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                           Amendment No. 4253

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I left an important markup of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee because it was my understanding the 
Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, wished to debate an amendment I 
have pending before this body and she wanted to do so at either 3:30 or 
3:45. It is now almost a quarter after 4, and I am told the schedule of 
the Senator from California has changed. I am very eager, having spent 
considerable time waiting for her on the Senate floor, to return to the 
markup. So I am going to give my comments now and try to anticipate the 
arguments my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, will be making 
in opposition to the amendment I have offered. It is a little difficult 
to do it that way, but having waited for some time now, I do need to 
return to the committee's markup.
  My bipartisan amendment is a common sense approach to protecting both 
jobs and children's health, and it has to do with the new regulation 
the EPA has put into effect as of April 22 that requires mandatory 
training for anyone who is involved in disturbing or removing lead-
based paint.
  Let me say I support the intention of this rule. In fact, along with 
my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, I have done a great deal 
of work to try to reduce the exposure of our children to lead-based 
paint. He and I held joint hearings in Rhode Island and Maine because 
both of our States have housing stocks that are older than the national 
average and, thus, have considerable lead-based paints. So I understand 
how important this issue is, and I support the rule.
  Unfortunately, the EPA has completely botched the implementation of 
this rule because of its inexcusably poor planning, and it did not 
ensure there was an adequate number of trainers to provide the required 
classes to ensure that contractors understand the requirements of the 
new rule. That is why it is probably not surprising that there is a 
long list of cosponsors of my amendment. They include Senators 
Alexander, Inhofe, Bond, Voinovich, Snowe, Begich, Gregg, Murkowski, 
Coburn, Thune, Corker, Brown of Massachusetts, Hutchison, Enzi and 
Barrasso, and I appreciate them joining me as cosponsors of this 
amendment.
  What my amendment would do is prohibit the EPA from using funds in 
this bill to levy fines against contractors under its new lead paint 
rule through September 30.
  Based on what I have seen in Maine, I believe the lion's share of 
contractors are awaiting EPA's training classes. Unfortunately, while 
they wait for EPA to deliver this training, they are at risk of being 
fined up to $37,500 per day, per violation. While I support EPA's rule 
because we must continue our efforts to safely rid toxic, lead-based 
paint from our homes, it is simply not fair to put these contractors at 
risk of these enormous fines when it is EPA's fault that these 
contractors have not been able to get the training that is required 
under the new rule.
  The fact is there are not enough trainers in place to certify the 
contractors. Let me give my colleagues an example. In three States--
Louisiana, South Dakota, and Wyoming--there are no trainers available. 
How is that fair? In my State, as of last week, there were only three 
EPA trainers for the entire State to certify contractors, and as a 
result just a little more than 10 percent of the State's contractors 
have been certified.
  Well, what does that mean? That means individuals will be affected, 
not just big contractors. It is your neighborhood painters; plumbers 
are affected; window replacement and door replacement specialists. It 
affects a wide variety of individuals involved in home renovations. 
They are all affected. They can't get the courses. So that means they 
can't do these jobs. Here is the ironic result. The ironic and tragic 
result is that lead-based

[[Page 9740]]

paint remains in these homes. It can't be removed because the 
contractors aren't certified to remove it. So that is the irony--the 
delay of the removal of lead-based paint.
  In a State such as Tennessee that has just undergone enormous 
flooding and is going to require extensive renovation and 
reconstruction, it is going to bring a lot of that work to a halt 
because for all of Tennessee there are only three EPA-certified 
trainers. In a State such as Alaska--think how vast Alaska is--there 
are only three certified trainers as well. In Hawaii, there are two. In 
Iowa, there is only one for the whole State. In the Presiding Officer's 
State of New Hampshire, there are only three--again, not nearly enough.
  The rule carries a big penalty for contractors who do not get 
trained. 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. Well, in your State and my State, that is more than many of these 
painters make in a year--in a year. And how unfair it is that it is the 
EPA's fault that in many cases these contractors are not certified. 
They are not certified because they simply cannot get the courses.
  Let me give my colleagues another example of the EPA's total 
mishandling of the planning for this rule. The EPA estimated that it 
only needed to train 1,400 people in my State--1,400 people. In fact, 
there are more than 20,000 individuals in the State of Maine who 
require training. The EPA assumes they are part of large firms and that 
only one person at each firm needs to be certified. That is just not 
how it works. In my State--indeed, I bet in most rural States--
contractors are often one or two people in a shop. They aren't these 
big firms. The person who did work on my home replacing the windows 
just a couple of years ago--and I am glad he did it then before this 
new rule went into effect--works either alone or with one or two other 
people to assist him. That is very typical.
  There is an assumption by the EPA that contractors specialize, that 
they only do renovations in old homes or they do new home construction. 
That isn't true at all, particularly not in this economic environment 
where the housing industry has been so hurt and depressed. The 
contractors in my State are hustling to do whatever they can in order 
to get work and to put food on their table. They work in mixed 
communities with both older and newer homes. It is simply not fair to 
require them to give up working in older homes, particularly in a State 
such as mine which has some of the oldest housing in the Nation.
  Here is another assertion by the EPA. The EPA asserts that they did 
plenty of outreach and that contractors should have known they needed 
to get training before April 22. Clearly, the EPA did not adequately 
target its outreach campaign. Writing to Home Depot doesn't do it. That 
is not sufficient outreach. In fact, the classes were all offered in 
the southern part of my State, very far from people in Aroostook County 
in northern Maine, for example, where it could be a 5 or 6-hour drive 
in order to get the necessary training. When we begged the EPA for more 
trainers and more help, it took them 7 weeks to even respond with some 
ideas for getting more trainers in Maine, and even then their proposal 
showed a complete lack of understanding of the geography of the State 
and the number of people who would need to be trained.
  It also was frustrating because they offered some very expensive 
classes. EPA, for example, offered a class for $200 in Waterville for 
people living in Aroostook County. That is almost 5 hours away. So not 
only were they going to be required to pay $200 for the course, but 
also they would miss 2 days of work traveling back and forth. That is 
inexcusable, and that is the kind of insensitivity out of Washington 
that makes people so alienated from government right now. It is exactly 
why people are so frustrated.
  The EPA will point out the dangers of lead poisoning, and I could not 
agree more that lead poisoning is a terrible problem and that we have 
to do all we can to protect our children. But poor implementation of 
this rule serves no one well, and in fact, as I pointed out, it means 
lead paint is going to remain in homes that otherwise would have been 
remediated or mitigated.
  This rule is very strict. If you disturb just 6 square feet of paint, 
then you have to comply with the new rule. So it doesn't just apply to 
a large contractor doing an extensive renovation; it is going to apply 
if you are a carpenter replacing one window in a home or if you are a 
plumber who is helping to put in a new bathroom where there is lead 
paint or if you are a painter who is painting a new room or an old room 
in a house. So it has very wide application.
  How the EPA so misjudged the number of people who would require 
training is beyond me. This is so frustrating because it did not need 
to happen this way and cause such hardship for our small business men 
and women who are struggling if they are in the construction business 
right now.
  That is why my amendment--a bipartisan amendment with considerable 
support--has been endorsed by the National Federation of Independent 
Business, our Nation's largest small business advocacy organization. In 
fact, the NFIB will consider a vote in favor of my amendment as an NFIB 
key vote for this Congress. I want to make sure my colleagues recognize 
that.
  I wish to read a portion of the letter from NFIB. Again, as NFIB 
points out:

       The new EPA lead rule applies to virtually any industry 
     affecting home renovation including: Painters, plumbers, 
     window and door installers, carpenters, electricians, and 
     similar specialists . . . NFIB appreciates the intent of the 
     law . . . However, we continue to be concerned that the tight 
     enforcement deadline unfairly punishes contractors who have 
     not been able to become accredited through no fault of their 
     own.

  That is the point. In my State, there are literally hundreds of 
contractors who are on waiting lists to get convenient classes, and 
some of them have been on these class waiting lists for as long as 2 
months. So this is a real problem, and the high penalty for 
noncompliance is simply unfair.
  I would point out that this is the peak construction season, 
particularly in Northern States such as ours, I say to the Presiding 
Officer. We can't bring everything to a grinding halt because the EPA 
did such poor planning in rolling out this new rule.
  I also wish to point out that the amendment has been endorsed by the 
Retail Lumber Dealers Association and by the Window and Door 
Manufacturers Association. It is endorsed by the National Home Builders 
Association. It is endorsed by a number of groups representing small 
businesses involved in the renovation of homes.
  Again--because I can just imagine what is going to come about later 
when my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, comes to the floor--
this is not about repealing this rule. This is about giving more time 
for the training, the mandatory classes to take place before the EPA 
steps in and wallops these small businesses, these self-employed 
painters and carpenters and window installers and plumbers, with huge 
fines that could put them out of business simply because they have not 
been able to get the mandatory training due to the EPA's poor 
implementation of this new rule.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is a modest, 
commonsense solution to a problem created here in Washington by 
officials who are simply out of touch with what is going on in home 
renovation businesses. I hope my colleagues will support it. All it is 
doing is giving us a few more months to get people trained. I think 
that it is reasonable. I ask for my colleagues' support.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant Daily Digest editor 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.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, later we will be taking up an amendment 
I filed to the supplemental appropriations bill--amendment No. 4191--
and at

[[Page 9741]]

that time, with an agreement that is reached by all sides, I will not 
be asking for a vote on that amendment and will be withdrawing it. I 
wanted to give the reasons why I will be doing so.
  I was pleased that President Obama announced today that he would put 
on hold the lease-sale 220 site that is off the coast of Virginia for 
offshore drilling. Let me take us back to March, when President Obama 
made the announcement that certain parts of our coast--previously off 
limits for offshore drilling--would now be allowed to go forward with 
drilling. At that time, Senator Mikulski and I sent a letter, issued a 
statement, making it clear we would resist any efforts to drill off of 
the Virginia coast 50 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. We 
thought the risk of these drillings were too great with the amount of 
oil that may have been there.
  The President's announcement today takes that issue off the table, at 
least temporarily. The amendment I offered to the supplemental 
appropriations bill which, of course, would have been in effect during 
the use of the funds in the supplemental appropriations, would have 
prevented any of those funds from being used for drilling off the 
Atlantic or the straits of Florida. The President's announcement has 
now taken care of my immediate concern that there could have been an 
effort to move forward on drilling off of the Virginia coast.
  I want to go over the pluses and minuses of this, because I think it 
is an interesting dynamic here as to the benefits that could have been 
involved in drilling off of the Atlantic coast.
  As I said before, the site that was selected is about 50 miles from 
the mouth of the Chesapeake, about 60 miles from Assateague Island. If 
there had been a spill, the prevailing winds, over 70 percent of the 
time, come into the coast or along the coast. That means if we had a 
spill, that spill would have had dramatic impact on the Chesapeake Bay, 
on Assateague Island, on the beaches of Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, 
Virginia, and probably the east coast of the United States, and could 
have caused irreparable harm.
  The potential oil that is in site 220 matches about 1 week of our 
Nation's needs. So the risk-benefit here clearly dictates that we not 
drill along the mid-Atlantic. And I would like to add one additional 
factor, and that is there has been concern expressed by the Department 
of Defense as to moving forward with drilling off the shores of 
Virginia, because the Navy does operations within this area, and it 
would have been an encroachment on the ability of the Department of 
Defense to move forward with its needs. In a time of war, we certainly 
don't want to jeopardize the Defense needs.
  So for all those reasons, the Senators from this region--Senator 
Mikulski, myself, Senator Lautenberg, and Senator Menendez--have been 
arguing very strenuously against moving forward, and that is the reason 
why I filed amendment No. 4191. Fortunately, the President has removed 
the immediate concern.
  Of course, since his March announcement, we have seen the BP Oil 
episode in the Gulf of Mexico--this horrific event. By the way, the 
largest spill we had in the United States--the Exxon Valdez accidental 
spill--was 10.8 million gallons. We now believe the spill in the Gulf 
of Mexico currently is approaching 40 million gallons. So we are 
talking about perhaps as much as three to four times the scope of what 
happened with the Exxon Valdez.
  We know the original estimates were wrong. We don't know the exact 
estimates. Some say it is even larger than that. But we do know that we 
have now exceeded the Exxon Valdez as far as the amount of oil that has 
gone into the Gulf of Mexico and, of course, is traveling. It is 
traveling, as Senator Nelson points out frequently, along the Loop 
Current that brings it around the Keys up the east coast of the United 
States. So this is having a catastrophic environmental impact.
  As I have said previously on the floor, the permits for the BP Oil 
site never should have been granted. The exploration plans spelled out 
very clearly that there was little risk of a spill, and that if they 
had a spill, it would not affect our coast because they had proven 
technology to prevent that from happening. Well, they didn't have 
proven technology. The blowout preventers had failed on numerous 
occasions previously, and we know that they misrepresented the facts.
  The point I am bringing up is that there is a need for significant 
change in our regulatory system as it relates to going forward with 
drilling, and the President is recognizing that today. He announced a 
moratorium on deep water and he also announced a modification on what 
is happening in the Arctic. I think all that is the right step moving 
forward. It is the first step forward, to acknowledge we have a 
problem. But I want to point out that the areas already available for 
exploration represent over 70 percent of our known reserves--I think 
over 80 percent on oil. So we are talking about a very little amount in 
new areas. And we only have less than 3 percent of the world's 
reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil.
  As the President said today, what happened in the Gulf of Mexico 
should be a real awakening call to our Nation to go forward with an 
energy policy to make us secure. We cannot drill our way out of this 
problem. We have to develop renewable and alternative energy sources. 
We need to be serious about conservation, and we need to look at ways 
that we can be energy secure and improve our economic outlook by 
creating jobs and also be friendly toward our environment.
  For all those reasons, it makes absolutely no sense whatever to move 
forward with new explorations along the Atlantic coast.
  Although I applaud the President's announcement today--it is a step 
in the right direction--what we need to do is take this site, lease 
sale 220, off the table permanently and take drilling in the Atlantic 
permanently off the table. I assure my colleagues I will be looking for 
a way in which we can speak to this to provide the legislative 
authority so drilling will not take place off the Atlantic coast. I 
know Senator Feinstein is also working on amendments to make sure we do 
not have any new permits issued until we have a regulatory system in 
place that we all have confidence is independent and will protect the 
environment and safety of the American people.
  The bottom line is that the American people have a right to expect we 
are going to do what is right for this country, that we are on their 
side and we are not just going to listen to what the oil industry 
wants. We are going to make sure we protect our environment and make 
sure we have an energy policy that makes sense for America.
  I think the President took an important step forward today in his 
announcements concerning taking this lease site, at least for the 
moment, off the table so we are not threatened by exploration off the 
Virginia coast. That was the intent of my amendment. I am very pleased 
he did that. But I hope this will lead this body to pass legislation to 
permanently protect the Atlantic coast because, frankly, oil spilled 
anywhere on the Atlantic coast will affect the entire coast.
  We need to be mindful that we all are in this together. Let's work on 
responsible policies for regulation to make sure our regulators are 
controlling the drilling that is taking place in the proper manner, and 
let's work together on an energy policy that makes sense for this 
Nation, that will make us energy secure and provide for America's 
future.
  With that in mind, when the appropriate time comes to consider 
amendment No. 4191, I want my colleagues to know why I will not be 
seeking action on that amendment. I believe the President's actions 
will protect those of us on the east coast of the United States during 
this immediate time, during 2010, so we will not have any drilling 
done. I am satisfied that we have been able to protect our communities 
from drilling. But I urge us to get together to make sure that is 
permanent and that it is not changed when perhaps people's recollection 
of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico might not be quite as fresh as 
it is today, as we see the consequences of this environmental disaster.

[[Page 9742]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, I ask to be recognized for 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Amendment No. 4221 Withdrawn

  Mr. ISAKSON. Madam President, in 1 minute I am going to ask for 
unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 4221, which is currently 
pending on the legislation before us. After discussions with the staff, 
it is my understanding that the appropriations included in FEMA in this 
emergency legislation will, in fact, be available to those States that 
have been approved for funds that did not get them in the last budget 
because funds ran out. If that is the case, the State of Georgia would, 
as my intent was, be recognized to be a beneficiary of that. Therefore, 
I ask unanimous consent that the Isakson amendment, No. 4221, be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ISAKSON. 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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Menendez amendment to the Reid amendment 
is the pending question.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, would it be in order for me to speak 
against the Collins amendment, No. 4253, at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it would.


                           Amendment No. 4253

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I hope we are going to defeat the 
Collins amendment, No. 4253. Let me explain what the amendment does. I 
want to describe why it is wrong and why it should be defeated.
  The purpose of the Collins amendment is to prohibit the EPA, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, from ensuring compliance with Federal 
safeguards to protect pregnant women, infants, and children from lead 
poisoning related to repair and renovation work involving lead-based 
paint. I think everyone agrees--I don't think there is any dissent--
that lead is very dangerous and lead poisons children. We know it is 
imperative to remove the lead from the child's environment in order to 
make sure they do not get brain damage.
  This amendment is designed to stop the EPA from enforcing that very 
important safeguard of removing this lead even if businesses were 
criminally negligent, even if businesses were willfully breaking the 
law's safeguards. If children were lead-poisoned and had permanent 
brain damage as a result of inadequate care being taken to protect the 
public health, EPA still couldn't enforce this law and get rid of the 
lead. Even if a child died as a result of severe lead poisoning, this 
amendment says EPA cannot enforce the law here.
  The reason that is given by Senator Collins for her amendment to 
prohibit EPA from enforcing this law to protect our kids from lead is 
that there are not enough trainers available at EPA to train businesses 
so they are properly trained to do this work. Later on in this 
statement, I will show why that is false. But let me say that we ought 
to know what we are getting into here if we start doing things like 
this. Whose side are we on, anyway--the side of our families or the 
side of some businesses that do not want to do what has to be done and 
are using any excuse to get out of doing what needs to be done, which 
is to get rid of the lead.
  On April 22, 2008, EPA issued a rule requiring the use of lead-safe 
practices to prevent lead poisoning. The rule requires one contractor 
in a renovation or repair job site to be certified in lead safe job 
practices. This one contractor can oversee or conduct the work. The 
rule covers projects at childcare facilities, schools, and homes that 
were built before 1978, and any facility that contains lead-based 
paint.
  The Bush administration's EPA promulgated this rule after then-
Senator Obama worked to get the Agency to conduct the rulemaking. When 
the Agency started the rulemaking in 2006, the EPA was a decade behind 
the schedule Congress had set out. Imagine this: It took an extra 10 
years to get this regulation in place, and Senator Collins wants to 
stop the enforcement. This is a bad amendment.
  Let me tell you about the public health threats EPA's rule is 
designed to protect. According to the CDC, the Centers for Disease 
Control, lead is a dangerous toxin that can harm almost every organ and 
system in the body, and there is no known safe level of lead in 
children's blood. About 250,000 U.S. children age 1 to 5 have blood 
lead levels greater than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, 
the level on which CDC recommends public health intervention. When 
children have that much lead in their bodies, they may have to undergo 
painful treatments to quickly reduce their blood lead levels. According 
to the EPA, lead can damage the nervous system, including the brain, 
which can harm mental development, and it can cause permanent injury to 
hearing and visual abilities.
  Pregnant women, infants, and children are especially at risk from 
exposure to lead. Exposure before and during pregnancy can harm 
prenatal development and cause miscarriages. Large exposure to lead can 
cause blindness, brain damage, convulsions, and even death. The long-
term effects of lead exposure in children include higher school failure 
rates and reduction in lifetime earnings due to permanent loss of 
intelligence and other impacts.
  Let me tell you, Madam President, this is a proven scientific fact. 
Exposure to lead in children--in all of us is a real problem but 
especially in children. If we are not on the side of the children in 
this Senate, I don't know whose side we are on.
  This is a very unwise amendment. According to the EPA, 40 percent of 
homes have some lead-based paint, and annual renovation, repair, and 
painting projects may impact 1.4 million children under the age of 6. 
Lead-based paint repair and renovation activities can significantly 
increase the risk of elevated blood lead in our children. An EPA study 
found that children living in residences during renovation and 
remodeling activities were 30 percent more likely to have elevated 
blood lead levels than children who lived elsewhere.
  States from coast to coast recognize the threat lead poses to infants 
and children, and they recognize that trained individuals should do 
lead paint repair and renovation work.
  In Maine, the State government recognizes that more than 60 percent 
of Maine homes may contain lead paint. Home renovations caused over 
half the childhood lead poisonings in Maine.
  This is a statement from the Maine government:

       It is very important that home repairs in an area with lead 
     paint be done safely and correctly. Improper removal of lead 
     paint can poison you and your children.

  This is from the State of Maine. They go on to say:

       Every year, hundreds of children in Maine are found to have 
     elevated blood levels. Most children are poisoned by lead 
     hazards in their homes. To protect yourself, your family and 
     any tenants, you can use a licensed lead abatement contractor 
     with workers who have been trained and certified in lead 
     abatement.

  In Tennessee, we have a similar warning:

       A common source of high-dose lead exposure to young 
     children is deteriorating paint in homes and buildings.

  They say:

       Hire a certified lead-based paint professional to remove 
     lead-based paint from your home.

  In Oklahoma, they say:

       Lead poisoning is the No. 1 environmental health hazard for 
     children. Remodeling a house covered in lead paint will 
     create dust and paint chips that can cause lead poisoning if 
     inhaled or ingested. Protect your family from lead during 
     remodeling.

  The State says:

       If you hire contractors, make sure they understand the 
     causes of lead poisoning and how to stay safe.


[[Page 9743]]


  In my home State of California, this is what they say:

       Lead in paint chips, dust, and soil cling to toys, fingers, 
     and other objects children put into their mouths. This is the 
     most common way children get lead poisoning.

  Many construction professionals today still do not know about the 
harmful effects of lead. They may not even know that simple painting, 
remodeling, or renovation projects can cause lead poisoning.
  I think it is very important to note that industry has had years to 
understand and prepare for this rule. EPA began the rulemaking in 2006, 
and contracting organizations and other stakeholders met and talked 
with the agency. EPA issued a final rule in 2008. The rule did not go 
into effect until 2010.
  EPA got hundreds of comments during the rulemaking process. The 
agency has joined with the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, 
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Ad 
Council to sponsor a nationwide public advertising campaign to raise 
awareness of the dangers of lead poisoning to children.
  Advertisements are being distributed to more than 33,000 media 
outlets, and workers are already trained and more workers are receiving 
training in order to ensure compliance with this rule's safeguards.
  Let me tell you, Senator Collins has stated on this floor that she 
supports getting the lead out of our homes, that she supports training 
the contractors. The reason she is stopping this--and make no mistake, 
stopping this program, which means more lead poisoning in our 
children--the reason is, she says, there is not enough trainers.
  So we called EPA. I spoke to Senator Feinstein about this, and we 
find no such thing. According to EPA, States across the Nation have 
more than enough trainers to handle renovation needs at this point in 
the year. In areas of States that may be harder to get to the agency 
has traveling trainers who go from State to State giving classes.
  EPA has stated the number of renovators needed to implement the rule 
during the first full year will be achieved in the next 2 months. They 
will have trained 363,000 renovators. This means training is ahead of 
schedule. It is ahead of needs since we are only halfway through the 
year.
  As of May 19, there are 223 accredited training providers offering 
training across the country; 119 are available to travel to provide 
training in any State--your State, my State, any State. Most of these 
trainers are offering multiple training courses each week.
  As of May 19, 2010, these training providers have offered over 12,000 
renovator certification classes and trained 200,000 to 250,000 
renovators. Further, 238 additional training providers have applied to 
become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than double 
the Nation's training capacity.
  Let's take a look at Maine. According to EPA, this State is estimated 
to need 1,300 renovators trained in this first year that the Federal 
rule protecting people from lead poisoning is in effect. As of May 19, 
Maine has at least 2,686 trained renovators, and there have been 158 
classes provided in the State.
  Again, there are 119 traveling providers who can travel anywhere in 
the country to offer courses. EPA told Senator Collins' staff, and we 
found this out from EPA, that the agency would send such trainers to 
northern Maine to offer classes in Bangor, where staff said there was a 
need for more trainers.
  EPA asked staff for contact information on the individuals who had 
called the Senator asking for assistance in getting trained. So far EPA 
has not received a response. In Maine, believe it or not, there have 
been cancellations of training classes, and 32 classes have been 
canceled. EPA believes cancellations occur because they are just not 
enrolling. So to come here and say there are not enough trainers, when 
her State has canceled training, just does not add up.
  EPA's rules already provide exemptions for emergency situations. For 
example, the recent floods in Tennessee have damaged many homes that 
must now undergo renovation. On May 14, 2010, the EPA sent the State of 
Tennessee a letter announcing that emergency exemptions from the 
agency's lead paint repair and renovation rule applied in 42 counties 
that had experienced serious flooding. EPA stated:

       It is permissible for individuals to perform immediate 
     activities necessary to protect their property and public 
     health. These actions may include the removal of surfaces 
     containing lead-based paint. Further, these actions need not 
     be performed by a certified individual. To the extent 
     necessary to alleviate the concerns associated with this 
     emergency.

  So EPA is being very flexible. They are not saying to people who are 
trying to recover from a flood: You need to remove the lead. If you 
need to deal with your home, deal with it. Do not have this added 
worry. So they are flexible.
  Lead hazard information: having a sign to warn people about lead dust 
hazards, containing lead dust in the work area by using such materials 
as plastic and tape, lead dust waste handling requirements and certain 
training and certification requirements. This also has been waived in 
this Tennessee circumstance.
  EPA has said some safeguards still apply to these renovations. But 
they have exempted them from quite a few. They do not want to see our 
children exposed. EPA's rules require a simple, commonsense action such 
as using plastic and tape to control the migration of lead dust, the 
use of HEPA vacuums that can be purchased at department stores to clean 
up dust, and a prohibition on certain actions that create extremely 
serious lead dust hazards. According to EPA, these safeguards add only 
$35 to the cost of renovation.
  I have letters from public health organizations that oppose this 
amendment. I also have a letter from the EPA explaining why it opposes 
this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the 
Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Center for Healthy Housing


    Protect Women, Infants and Children from Lead Poisoning--Oppose 
                             Amendment 4253

       The undersigned organizations and individuals oppose 
     Senator Collins' Amendment 4253 that would put over 1 million 
     children at risk of irreversible lead poisoning. The 
     amendment would prohibit EPA from spending funds under this 
     emergency supplemental appropriations act to enforce the 
     Agency's rule to require work practices that protect people 
     from health threats caused by repair and renovation work on 
     lead-based paint.
       Even though the Act does not provide EPA with any funds to 
     enforce these important requirements, it will put every 
     Senator who votes for it on record as being against EPA 
     enforcing safeguards in the Agency's lead repair and 
     renovation rule. These protections are designed to prevent 
     lead poisoning--a devastating disease that has ravaged our 
     education, judicial, and health care system for far too long. 
     The amendment sets a horrible precedent and if it becomes 
     law, it would put the entire federal government on record 
     against enforcing the safeguards, which may have serious 
     consequences.
       The Environmental Protection Agency published the 
     ``Renovate Right Rule'' to protect children from unsafe lead 
     exposure caused by renovations in older homes. Public health 
     organizations have been waiting 18 years for this rule to be 
     implemented and now Senator Collins is threatening to roll 
     back decades of lead poisoning prevention work. The rule 
     requires contractors to follow three simple procedures: 
     contain the work area, minimize dust, and clean up 
     thoroughly. This rule closes a major gap in lead poisoning 
     prevention--with only a modest $35 cost increase per 
     renovation job, according to a 2008 Bush Administration 
     analysis.
     Please consider the following facts:
       Lead remains the most significant environmental health 
     hazard to children, with over 250,000 children impacted. More 
     than one million children are at risk each year when homes 
     are renovated.
       Lead is especially toxic for young children. It can cause 
     permanent brain damage, loss of IQ, behavior and memory 
     problems and reduced growth.
       Among adults, lead exposure can result in reproductive 
     problems, high blood pressure, nerve disorders and memory 
     problems.

     Countless children have suffered the consequences of lead 
     exposure due to the delays in finalizing the rule. Don't vote 
     for an amendment that will put you on record as being against 
     enforcing these important public health protections.
           Sincerely,
       Rebecca Morley, National Center for Healthy Housing, 
     Columbia, MD; Bill

[[Page 9744]]

     Menrath, Healthy Homes LLC, Cincinnati, OH; Roberta Hazen 
     Aaronson, Childhood Lead Action Project, Providence, RI; 
     Margie Coons, WI Division of Public Health, Madison, WI; 
     Melanie Hudson, Children's Health Forum, Washington, DC; 
     Yanna Lambrindou, Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives, 
     Washington, DC; Linda Kite, Healthy Homes Collaborative, Los 
     Angeles, CA; Shan Magnuson, Santa Rosa, CA; Bay Area Get the 
     Lead Out Coalition, CA; Fresno Interdenominational Refugee 
     Ministries, Fresno, CA; Jose A. Garcia, lnquilinos Unidos, 
     Los Angeles, CA; Rafael Barajas, L.A. Community Legal Center 
     and Educational, Huntington Park, CA; Jim Peralta, Interstate 
     Property Inspections, Inc., Rochester, NY; Nancy Halpern 
     Ibrahim, Esperanza Community Housing Corporation, Los 
     Angeles, CA; Mark Allen, Alameda County Lead Poisoning 
     Prevention Program, Oakland, CA; Martha Arguello, Physicians 
     for Social Responsibility-Los Angeles, CA.
       David Reynolds, Facility Manager, Jackson, MS; Larry Gross, 
     Coalition for Economic Survival, Los Angeles, CA; Jang Woo 
     Nam, Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance, Los Angeles, CA; 
     Leann Howell, Riverside, NJ; Richard A. Baker, Baker 
     Environmental Consulting, Inc., Lenexa, KS; Greg Secord, 
     Rebuilding Together, Washington, DC; Kim Foreman, 
     Environmental Health Watch, Cleveland, OH; Sue Gunderson, 
     ClearCorps USA, Minneapolis, MN; J. Perry Brake, American 
     Management Resources Corporation, Fort Myers, FL; Paul Haan, 
     Healthy Homes Coalition of West Michigan, MI; Andrew 
     McLellan, Environmental Education Associates, Buffalo, NY; 
     Ruth Ann, National Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, 
     Baltimore, MD; Kathy Lauckner, UNLV-Harry Reid Center for 
     Environmental Studies, Las Vegas, NV; Greg Spiegel, Inner 
     City Law Center, Los Angeles, CA; Kent Ackley, RI Lead Techs, 
     East Providence, RI; Elena I. Popp, Los Angeles, CA; Lana 
     Zahn, from Niagara County Childhood Lead Poisoning Program, 
     Lockport, NY.
                                  ____

                                       United States Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                     Washington, DC, May 27, 2010.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: Thank you for your interest in the 
     amendment proposed by Senator Collins that is aimed at 
     eliminating EPA's enforcement of various regulations that are 
     necessary to protect children from lead based paint 
     poisoning. The stated purpose of this amendment is to 
     ``prohibit the imposition of fines and liability under'' 
     various rules on lead paint, including the Lead Renovation, 
     Repair and Painting Rule.
       We oppose the amendment on the grounds that it may set a 
     precedent that Congress seeks to prevent enforcement against 
     criminal actions with respect to the lead rules. The 
     amendment could be interpreted as seeking to stop EPA from 
     taking criminal enforcement action against those who 
     knowingly or willfully violate lead rules, even in egregious 
     cases causing lead poisoning in children. A real possibility 
     exists that a contractor who knowingly or willfully ignores 
     the new lead rules during a renovation would not be held 
     accountable under this language. Furthermore, such an 
     amendment could stop EPA from taking enforcement action 
     against those who improperly perform renovations. Such an 
     amendment could pose lead hazards from renovations to an 
     estimated 137,000 children under age 6 and to one million 
     individuals age 6 and older. Finally, there are 250,000 
     people who have followed the requirements of the law to 
     become trained and certified. The amendment is inequitable 
     because it favors those who were slow to comply.
       Overall, the amendment as written could be read as an 
     expression of the intent of Congress to block implementation 
     and enforcement of the rules on lead based paint. If you or 
     your staff have any further questions regarding our concerns 
     on the amendment, please let us know.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stephen A. Owens,
                                          Assistant Administrator.

  Mrs. BOXER. I think it is important to take a stand for our children. 
This would completely shut down this important program. It would say it 
is put on hold, even in the worst circumstances.
  The National Center for Healthy Housing sent a letter: ``Protect 
Women, Infants and Children from Lead Poisoning--Oppose Amendment 
4253.''
  Let me tell you, it is signed by some important organizations: The 
National Center for Healthy Housing in Maryland; the Healthy Homes LLC, 
in Cincinnati, OH; Childhood Lead Action Project in Providence, RI; 
Division of Public Health in Madison, WI; Children's Health Forum in 
Washington, DC; Parents for Nontoxic Alternatives, Washington, DC; 
Healthy Homes Collaborative, Los Angeles; and Bay Area Get the Lead Out 
Coalition, CA; Fresno Interdenominational Ministries in Fresno. The 
list goes on and on, many from California.
  Interstate Property Inspections, Inc., in Rochester, NY; Alameda 
County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, Oakland, CA; Jackson, MI, a 
facility manager says no to this amendment. The Coalition for Economic 
Survival says no. Riverside, NJ, we have a letter from them. We have a 
letter from Kansas. We have more from Cleveland, from Minnesota, from 
Florida, the American Management Resources Corporation; Healthy Homes 
Coalition in Michigan; Environmental Education Associates in Buffalo; 
Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning in Baltimore, MD. Here is an 
interesting one. The Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies in Las 
Vegas, NV. We ought to make sure our leader knows they have taken a 
stand here.
  The Rhode Island Lead Techs, in East Providence, and from Niagara 
County, Childhood Lead Poisoning Program.
  This is where we stand. Finally, we have a rule in place, and it 
happens to be that President Obama, when he was a Senator, pushed hard 
for that rule. It made it through, and there has been long lead time. 
We are ready to go.
  Whenever there is a renovation now, and we know there is lead 
involved, we have to make sure somebody is trained.
  EPA has the trainers. The fact that someone stands on the floor of 
the Senate and says they do not flies in the face of what I read. We 
know how many we have. We know there are many who would come on and go 
anyplace across the country. These training sessions take about 8 
hours, and then the person is licensed to do this removal.
  That is it. Let's not turn back the clock. Let's not go back to the 
time that we did not know lead caused these problems. Lead is poison. 
Lead is poison. We are ready to get it out of these old buildings. We 
are ready to do it, and I do not see why we should turn the clock back 
to another time and place and say we are doing it for the reason that 
there are not enough trainers when there are enough trainers.
  That is not right. So I will say at this time, I do not see anybody 
else here. I hope we will vote down the Collins amendment.
  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. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                              memorial day

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, on this upcoming final day in May we 
will observe Memorial Day, and remember the men and women in uniform 
who have loved this country and given their lives to defend it. 
Memorial Day is a time to honor their extraordinary sacrifice.
  We have a proud tradition of service in my home State of Kentucky, 
home to Fort Knox, Fort Campbell and many of our brave troops. Just a 
few days ago soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division, based out of 
Fort Campbell, cased their colors in preparation for deployment to 
Afghanistan. Training the local police force will be a major focus for 
this mission, the fourth deployment for the division headquarters since 
9/11.
  More than 10,000 men and women from the 101st are already deployed to 
Afghanistan, and by the end of August that number will reach 20,000.
  In addition, about 3,500 soldiers from the Army's 3rd Brigade Combat 
Team, based at Fort Knox, are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan soon, 
as are up to about 2,000 Kentucky Army and Air National Guard members.
  Five soldiers from the 101st have died in Afghanistan since January. 
Every soldier preparing to ship out faces that same risk, but that does 
not deter them from duty and service. They are working to keep their 
families back home and all Americans safe.
  I have met with many of the family members of soldiers, sailors and 
marines from Kentucky who gave their lives in service. I have let them 
know that their loved ones will not be forgotten by this country. And 
they are not

[[Page 9745]]

forgotten in the U.S. Senate. We are honored to share this land with 
such brave heroes.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant editor of the Daily Digest proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I note that we faced a long discussion 
about a bill that was just passed out of the Armed Services Committee. 
I, unfortunately, felt compelled to oppose it, but I appreciate working 
with the Senator from Illinois as we discussed it.


                           Amendment No. 4173

  Mr. President, I am disappointed that we are going to vote on this 
emergency supplemental legislation, not having voted on the amendment I 
offered, along with Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, my Democratic 
colleague. It received 59 votes a few weeks ago. It is designed to help 
contain our rapacious tendency to spend, spend, spend. We give the 
phrase ``a drunken sailor spending'' a bad name the way we are spending 
in this Congress.
  I had hoped we would get another vote on it. I am disappointed 
Senator Reid and the leadership on the Democratic side took action to 
see that a vote would not occur. I called it up very early in the 
process, and I am disappointed.
  The amendment would have made it more difficult to break the budget 
and allowed more scrutiny for us before we violate it. The emergency 
supplemental legislation that is before us violates the budget. Every 
penny of this is spending beyond the budget. It has items that are not 
what we think of as emergencies.
  If our military men and women have a health problem and there is a 
condition that requires us to take care of them, that takes extra 
money. We deal with these issues in the Armed Services Committee. But 
that is not an emergency. Those kinds of things happen all the time. We 
are allocating $13 billion for an Agent Orange compensation plan that, 
I have to say, appears to me to not be written very tightly. Anyone who 
basically served in Vietnam who has heart disease can apparently claim 
some benefit under it.
  I am not saying that is unjustified. It may be. What I will say is, 
it is not the kind of thing we should use emergency spending for when 
the country is going in a wrong direction.
  We will soon be voting on tax extenders. I want to send a warning out 
to my colleagues and to the people who are concerned about the state of 
the American economy. I will quote some comments that have been said 
recently.
  Keith Hennessey, who is former director of the National Economic 
Council, wrote this:

       House Democrats have modified their ``extenders'' bill and 
     appear to be bringing it to the floor for a vote today. 
     Monday's version would have increased the deficit by $134 
     billion over the next decade. Today's version would increase 
     the deficit by $84 billion over the same timeframe. What hard 
     choices did the leaders make to cut the net deficit impact by 
     $50 billion? None. They simply extended the most expensive 
     provisions for a shorter period of time.
       What did they do? There was a complaint they had $134 
     billion in increased debt, and they were dealing with some 
     issues. They did not pay for them over a long enough time. 
     They just reduced it.

  Mr. Hennessey goes on to say:

       The new bill extends the unemployment insurance and COBRA 
     health insurance benefits through November 2010, rather than 
     December of 2010 in Monday's version.

  They just reduced it one month to save a little money there and make 
the bill look a little better. Does anyone doubt we will be coming back 
to extend it further in the future?
  Then he goes on to say:

       The Medicare ``doctors' fix'' would extend through 2011, 
     instead of through 2013 . . .

  Which means that after this year, our physicians will be back here 
complaining about the impending 21, 22 percent cut in their Medicare 
payments. They do not get paid enough now. We cannot cut our physicians 
20 percent. They are going to quit practicing and stop doing Medicare 
work.
  What did they do when somebody said: You are increasing the debt too 
much? We will just pass the doctors fix through the end of this year 
and push it on to the next, instead of doing it through 2013 like they 
planned.
  He goes on to say:

       The Congressional Budget Office has to score the amendment 
     as written, so these two provisions are scored as ``saving'' 
     $50 billion relative to the Monday version. But just as it 
     was unreasonable to assume that the increased Medicare 
     spending for doctors would suddenly drop at the end of 2013, 
     it is similarly foolhardy it will stop [in the future]. They 
     are doing in this bill exactly what they did in the two 
     health care bills that were rammed through in March--shifting 
     some of the spending into future legislation to reduce the 
     apparent cost of the current bill.
       Will it work again?

  Well, we are going to see.
  Mr. President, I would just make one more note. An editorial in 
today's New York Times titled ``Easy Money, Hard Truths'' by famous 
hedge fund manager David Einhorn, who lives and dies by Wall Street, 
moving money, keeping up with interest rates, lays out our budget 
problem very plainly in his column in the New York Times.

       Before this recession it appeared that absent action, the 
     government's long-term commitments would become a problem in 
     a few decades. I believe the government response to the 
     recession--

  And let me add, that is the extraordinary spending we have done in 
the last few months--

     has created budgetary stress sufficient to bring about the 
     crisis much sooner. Our generation--not our grandchildren's--
     will have to deal with the consequences.

  He goes on to say:

       According to the Bank for International Settlements, the 
     United States' structural deficit--the amount of our deficit 
     adjusted for the economic cycle--has increased from 3.1 
     percent of gross domestic product in 2007 to 9.2 percent in 
     2010. This does not take into account the very large 
     liabilities the government has taken on by socializing losses 
     in the housing market. We have not seen the bills for bailing 
     out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and even more so the Federal 
     Housing Administration, which is issuing government-
     guaranteed loans to noncreditworthy borrowers on terms easier 
     than anything offered during the housing bubble. Government 
     accounting is done on a cash basis, so promises to pay in the 
     future--whether Social Security benefits or loan guarantees--
     do not count in the budget until the money goes out the door.

  He goes on to say:

       A good percentage of the structural increase in the deficit 
     is because last year's ``stimulus'' was not stimulus in the 
     traditional sense. Rather than a one-time injection of 
     spending to replace a cyclical reduction in private demand, 
     the vast majority of the stimulus has been a permanent 
     increase in the base level of government spending--including 
     spending on government jobs.

  He goes on to say:

       In 2008, according to the Cato Institute, the average 
     Federal civilian salary with benefits was $119,982, compared 
     with $59,909 for the average private sector worker; the 
     disparity has grown enormously over the last decade.

  Inflation from our current high-spending culture is problematic as 
well. According to Einhorn:

       Government statistics are about the last place one should 
     look for inflation, as they are designed to not show much. 
     Over the last 35 years, government has changed the way it 
     calculates inflation several times. According to the Web site 
     Shadow Government Statistics, using the pre-1980 method, the 
     Consumer Price Index would be over 9 percent, compared with 
     about 2 percent in the official statistics today.

  He goes on to say this:

       At what level of government debt and future commitments 
     does government default go from being unthinkable to 
     inevitable, and how does our government think about that 
     risk? I recently posed this question to one of the 
     President's senior economic advisers.

  Mr. Einhorn asked him a very tough question: Is a government default 
on the horizon? Is it unthinkable or now is it on the way to being 
inevitable? And this is what Mr. Einhorn said the government adviser to 
President Obama said:

       He answered that the government is different from financial 
     institutions because it can print money, and statistically 
     the United States is not as bad off as some countries. For an 
     investor, these promises do not inspire confidence.

  So he goes on to warn about the danger of a crisis where the Treasury 
seeks to get people to buy our Treasury bills, to buy our bonds, and 
this is what can happen. He said:


[[Page 9746]]

       In the face of deteriorating market confidence, a rating 
     agency issues an untimely downgrade, setting off a rush of 
     sales by existing bondholders. This has been the experience 
     of many troubled corporations, where downgrades served as the 
     coup de grace. The current upset in the European sovereign 
     debt market is a prequel to what might happen here.

  That is today's warning in the New York Times, and we should take it 
very seriously.
  The bill before us is irresponsible. It spends too much, it creates 
too much debt, and we should not have done it. We did not have to do 
it. And the bill that is coming up, the tax extenders, is also 
irresponsible. It spends too much money. We do not have to do it, and 
we should not do it.
  The American people understand this completely. They tell me about it 
everywhere I go. Are we in denial in this body? Do we think it is just 
business as usual; that we can just continue to spend, spend, spend, 
borrow, borrow, borrow, and then presumably we will just print money 
and pay our debts, deflating our currency, eroding the value for the 
good and decent people of this country who have worked hard and saved 
all their lives? This is not good. The American people are right. No 
wonder our ratings with the public are so low.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Imbalance of Regulatory Capture

  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, one of my primary concerns in the debate 
on Wall Street reform has been that we should not write legislation 
that turns all of the major reform proposals over to the regulators. 
Instead, we should follow on the footsteps of our forebears from the 
1930s--those Senators of old who made the tough decisions and wrote 
bright-line laws which lasted for over 60 years, until they were 
repealed. I also argued that we should not depend on regulators who had 
not used powers they already possessed.
  Instead, we passed a Senate bill that, in the area of bank 
regulation, primarily restates existing regulatory powers, provides 
some general directional authority, and leaves us with the hope that 
our present regulators will devise and enforce rules that prevent 
another financial crisis; that a systemic risk council of regulators 
will be able to detect early warning signals of impending financial 
instability; that the regulators will impose higher capital standards 
on systemically significant banks; that the regulators will be able to 
resolve failing institutions, and so on, and so on, and so on.
  Yesterday, a third reason for writing laws and not turning to 
regulators was brought home to me. It relates to how the Securities and 
Exchange Commission is studying the incredibly unregulated growth of 
high-frequency trading.
  I am deeply concerned by preliminary reports of the makeup of the SEC 
panels studying high-frequency trading after the ``flash crash'' of May 
6. On that day, the Dow Jones fell almost 1,000 points, temporarily 
causing a $1 trillion drop in market value. I call on the SEC to make 
those panels more balanced by adding individuals from outside Wall 
Street who are truly sincere and knowledgeable about the further 
actions the SEC may need to take.
  In just a few years' time, high-frequency trading has grown from just 
30 percent to 70 percent of the daily trading volumes of stocks. These 
black box computers trade thousands of shares per second across more 
than 50 market centers with no real transparency--no real 
transparency--and therefore no effective regulation. If those 
ingredients--no transparency, no regulation--sound familiar, it might 
be because those are the same characteristics applied to over-the-
counter derivatives.
  My concern about the opaque and unregulated nature of high-frequency 
trading led me to write to SEC Chair Mary Schapiro last August 21, 
2009, calling for a comprehensive review of market structure issues. I 
wrote:

       The current market structure appears to be the consequence 
     of regulatory structures designed to increase efficiency and 
     thereby provide the greatest benefits to the highest volume 
     traders. The implications of the current system for buy-and-
     hold investors have not been the subject of a thorough 
     analysis. I believe the SEC's rules have effectively placed 
     ``increased liquidity'' as a value above fair execution of 
     trades for all investors.

  On September 10, Chair Schapiro responded, saying she recognized the 
importance of standing up for the interests of long-term investors and 
would undertake a comprehensive review of market structure issues.
  Because I had heard these concerns raised by credible voices, in a 
speech on September 14, 2009, I predicted some of the events of last 
May 6. At that time, I said:

       Unlike specialists and traditional market-makers that are 
     regulated, some of these new high-frequency traders are 
     unregulated, though they are acting in a market-maker 
     capacity. If we experience another shock to the financial 
     system, will this new, and dominant, type of pseudo market 
     maker act in the interest of the markets when we really need 
     them? Will they step up and maintain a two-sided market, or 
     will they simply shut off the machines and walk away? Even 
     worse, will they seek even further profit and exacerbate the 
     downside?

  On October 28, Senator Jack Reed convened a hearing in the securities 
subcommittee on these issues. He graciously asked me to testify at the 
hearing, where I said in my first statement:

       First, we must avoid systemic risk to the markets. Our 
     recent history teaches us that when markets develop too 
     rapidly--when they are not transparent, effectively regulated 
     or fair--a breakdown can trigger a disaster.

  On November 20, I sent a letter to Chairman Schapiro summarizing some 
of the hearing testimony and called on the Commission to acted quickly 
to ``tag'' high-frequency traders and address the systemic risk they 
pose. On December 3, Chairman Schapiro responded to my letter and wrote 
that the SEC would issue a concept release in January and put forth two 
rule proposals that would, respectively, impose tagging and disclosure 
requirements on high-frequency traders and address the risk of naked 
access arrangements.
  In January, the SEC did indeed issue a concept release, as well as a 
proposed rule banning naked access arrangements. Unfortunately, it was 
months later--April 14--before the SEC finally issued the ``large 
trader'' rule requiring tagging of high-frequency traders. In that 
proposed rule, the SEC noted that the current data collection system is 
inadequate to recreate market events and unusual trading activity.
  Now think about this. This was back on April 14, before the May 6 
thing, and what she said was: In the proposed rule, the SEC noted that 
the current data collection system is inadequate to recreate market 
events and unusual trading activity. Is there any question why we don't 
know yet what happened on May 6?
  Then, on May 6, the disaster struck that I and others were worried 
about. For 20 minutes, our stock market did not perform its central 
function: discovering prices by balancing buyers and sellers. And as 
the SEC has noted--both before and after the ``flash crash''--it indeed 
does not have the data to discover easily the causes of the market 
meltdown.
  It is true that the SEC and CFTC have gone into overdrive since May 
6. Indeed, the staffs and Commissioners of both agencies have worked 
heroically around the clock to try to recreate and study the unusual 
trading activity of that day. They have kicked into high gear and 
formed an advisory commission. They have quickly come together to 
propose two more possible rules: an industry-wide circuit breaker so 
that if we ever again have another market ``flash crash,'' we won't see 
absurd prices for some of our Nation's proudest company stocks, and 
also a long overdue proposal to have a consolidated audit trail across 
market centers that will finally provide regulators with access to the 
information they need to police manipulation, understand trading 
practices, and reconstruct unusual market activity in a timely manner.
  After weeks of helpful action by the SEC--when the industry itself 
was helping the agencies to find band-aid solutions--now is not the 
time to see the SEC continue with rulemaking by Wall Street consensus.

[[Page 9747]]

  We may need further action, probably against the interests of those 
who benefit from the current market design.
  Further action only through industry-consensus is a prescription for 
no change.
  This all brings me to why I became so concerned yesterday. As part of 
the Commission's ongoing market structure review, the SEC has decided 
to hold a roundtable discussion on June 2--good idea.
  I have learned preliminary reports about the make-up of the high 
frequency trader panel.
  Based on those reports, the panel is dramatically out of balance.
  It appears as though it was chosen primarily to hear testimony that 
reinforces the top-line defenses of the current market structure--that 
high frequency trading provides liquidity and reduces spreads--rather 
than what it should be doing, a deep dive into the problems that caused 
severe market dislocation on May 6 and damaged our market's 
credibility.
  I have called on the SEC to add more participants to give the panels 
some semblance of balance.
  Frankly, I find the preliminary reports to be so stacked in favor of 
the entrenched money that has caused the very problems we seek to 
address that the panel itself stands as a symbolic failure of the 
regulators and regulatory system--that is, with the exception of a few 
brave souls who have been invited to critique the conventional industry 
wisdom.
  Let me read from the comment letters and statements of five of the 
expected participants.
  Not surprisingly, in comments to the SEC and members the industry 
made prior to the unusual volatility of May 6, each of these five 
participants reported that--contrary to the concerns I and others had 
expressed--they think the markets are running as smoothly as ever.
  One of the expected panelists wrote:

       [O]ver the past 18 months--since the height of the 
     financial crisis--the Commission has been very active with 
     rule making proposals. Nearly all of the issues that may have 
     contributed to diminishing investor confidence have been 
     addressed by Commission rule-making.

  Ironic, after what happened on May 6.
  That panelist also wrote:

       We believe that the current national market system is 
     performing extremely well. For instance, the performance 
     during the 2008 financial crisis suggests that our equity 
     markets are resilient and robust even during times of stress 
     and dislocation.

  Another expected participant wrote in an email sent widely that his 
exchange--

     doesn't believe the equities markets are broken.
       To the contrary, we would argue that the U.S. equity 
     markets were a shining model of reliability and healthy 
     function during what some are calling one of the most 
     challenging and difficult times in recent market history.

  Another expected participant wrote:

       Implementing any type of regulation that would limit the 
     tools or the effectiveness of automation available for use by 
     any class of investor in the name of ``fairness'' would turn 
     back the clock on the U.S. Equity market and undo years of 
     innovation and investment.

  That is an interesting comment, because I have always believed that 
fairness was the hallmark and number one priority of U.S. markets. That 
is what people say. That is why people come to America. They don't come 
to invest in some casino game. Liquidity is important, but the key 
thing for our markets to be credible is fairness.
  Another expected panelist sounded a similar note in a comment letter 
filed before May 6.

       All market regulation should be evaluated with respect to 
     its impact on the liquidity and efficiency of equity markets 
     for the benefit of investors . . . For example, certain 
     short-term traders and high frequency traders provide 
     liquidity to the markets. Although some of these short-term 
     traders may differ at times in their goals and overall 
     position vis-a-vis other types of investors, we believe, on 
     the whole, that the liquidity they provide is beneficial to 
     the markets.

  I agree with that statement. Liquidity is vital to the strength and 
stability of our markets.
  But on May 6, liquidity vanished, as some of the short-term traders 
left the marketplace. And for those who didn't, we learned that the 
liquidity they provide was about 1/100th of an inch deep.
  Finally, another panelist co-signed a letter stating:

       We believe that any assessment of the current market 
     structure or the impacts of `high frequency trading' should 
     begin with the recognition that by virtually all measures, 
     the quality of the markets has never been better . . . .
       The equity markets have also proven to be remarkably 
     resilient. Despite the significant stresses that occurred 
     during the recent financial crisis, U.S. equity markets 
     remained open, liquid and efficient every day, while other 
     less competitive and less transparent markets failed.

  The SEC has picked one voice for the panel--Sal Arnuk of Themis 
Trading--who has been a vocal and intelligent critic of high frequency 
trading.
  He has valiantly raised questions about market structure and the 
trading advantages that high frequency traders enjoy, but he is being 
asked to go up against six Wall Street insiders who will no doubt be 
primed to argue against his position.
  People wonder why Americans have such little faith in Washington, DC. 
Talk about a stacked deck.
  I am particularly concerned by the upcoming SEC roundtable on high 
frequency trading because it is reminiscent of the one that the SEC 
held last September on ``naked'' short selling.
  Naked short selling occurs when a trader sells a financial instrument 
short without first borrowing it or even ensuring it can be borrowed. 
Just a reason on faith that it may be borrowed. What this means is 
traders can sell something they do not own or have not borrowed. 
Americans understand you cannot sell something you don't have.
  After the SEC's repeal of the 70-year uptick rule in 2007, abusive 
short selling facilitated the sort of self-fulfilling bear raids on 
stocks that we saw during the financial crisis.
  Since coming to office last year, I have highlighted this serious 
problem through a series of speeches and letters to the SEC. Along with 
seven other Senators, of both parties, I also called for pre-borrow 
requirements and centralized ``hard locate'' system solutions.
  In response to those concerns, the SEC held a roundtable last 
September to examine these proposals.
  Unfortunately, like the panel coming up, the panel was stacked with 
industry representatives even though the industry had done virtually 
nothing to address what had become a glaring problem.
  Listen to the lineup: Goldman Sachs, State Street, and the Depository 
Trust & Clearing Corporation DTCC, among others, participated.
  Not surprisingly, these panelists were resistant to the hard-locate 
requirement and other serious solutions, even while they generally 
acknowledged that there are bad actors who engage in naked short 
selling and don't comply with the current locate system.
  DTCC even backed away from discussing the very proposal it had laid 
before the U.S. Senate.
  I fear that an industry-stacked panel in the upcoming roundtable on 
high frequency trading will be more of the same and will once again 
dismiss fundamental reforms, ultimately leaving retail and long-term 
investors with half-measures or none at all.
  Why? Because repeatedly we see that regulators are dependent almost 
exclusively for the information and evidence they receive about market 
problems on the very market participants they are supposed to be 
confronting about needed changes.
  This is as true in other agencies--we filed the papers just last 
month and you can see it--like the agency charged with the oversight of 
oil drilling--as it is at the SEC.
  The regulators are surrounded--indeed they consciously choose to 
surround themselves--by an echo chamber of industry players who are 
making literally billions of dollars under the current system.
  Who speaks to the regulators on behalf of the average investor?
  Who outside of the industry itself has access to the data that only 
the industry controls?
  Who other than the market players who have invested so much of their

[[Page 9748]]

capital into the very systems that profit and serve their own interests 
has the analytical capability to lead the SEC in a different direction?
  We must have evidenced-based rules in our system, we are told.
  But when all the evidence comes from Wall Street, who is going to 
stop Wall Street from once again pulling the wool over the SEC's eyes?
  The events of May 6 demonstrate that technological developments have 
outpaced regulatory understanding. If we are to ensure our markets are 
safe from future failures--because the markets did fail their primary 
function on May 6th--regulators must catch up immediately.
  Competition is critical in our markets and has led to many positive 
developments. But with competition, we also need good regulation. Just 
like we need referees on the field who will blow their whistles when 
the game becomes rigged. In football, we don't let the players make up 
the rules during the game.
  So, we need action from our regulators, not negotiation. We need 
independent leadership by the SEC, not management by consensus with 
Wall Street.
  Again, I call on the SEC to rebalance these panels. The Commission 
will never be able to catch up if it hears mostly from those who will 
fight to maintain the status quo.
  The SEC must hear from those who speak for long-term investors and 
others who use our capital markets, not just from those who profit from 
high frequency trading.
  The American people deserve no less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, because I was not allowed to offer my 
amendment as part of the regular order, in a moment I will move to 
suspend the rules to offer my amendment that will set a deadline to 
complete 700 miles of double layer fencing on our Southwest border, as 
is required by current law.
  If any Member of the Senate stood up today and said that we should 
not seal the oil leak in the gulf until we have a comprehensive plan to 
clean it up, we would all say that is absurd. Certainly we need to seal 
that leak as quickly as possible to minimize the cleanup later. But 
that is exactly the kind of logic the President and my Democratic 
colleagues are using when it comes to immigration. They are insisting 
we will not secure our borders until Republicans agree to a 
comprehensive plan with some form of amnesty and road to citizenship 
for those who have come here illegally. This is a debate we have had 
before and it was not settled here as much as it was out across 
America.
  Americans have said: Secure the border first. The big immigration 
bill we were trying to pass in 2006 failed because Americans finally 
convinced Senators that our first job is to secure the border; 
otherwise, any immigration policy is irrelevant.
  At that time we made a promise to the American people and passed a 
law that we would build 700 miles of double layer fencing in areas 
where pedestrian traffic is the biggest problem. We have seen that 
where that has been implemented it has been effective. But, 
unfortunately, since 2006, even though we were promised this could be 
done in a year or two, only 34 miles of double layer fencing has been 
built since we passed this law. In other words, the Federal Government 
is ignoring its own law at the peril of the citizens in Arizona, Texas, 
and those all over the country. By not keeping our promises, by not 
enforcing the law, we have created devastation and war on our southern 
border with Mexico.
  Thousands of Mexicans have been killed. We encouraged drug cartels 
all over the world to ship their goods through our borders. Arms 
trafficking, human trafficking--we have mass chaos on our border 
because we will not do what we know works.
  The President is saying we have done over 90 percent of the fencing 
that we promised, but this is the virtual fencing that the chief of 
border security has said has been a complete failure. There are only 34 
miles of the 700 miles that we promised our country and put into law.
  My amendment does not make new law. It just sets a deadline, that the 
fence we promised will be completed within the next year.


                           Motion to Suspend

  Mr. President, I move to suspend the provisions of rule XXII, 
paragraph 2, including germaneness requirements for the purpose of 
proposing and considering my amendment, No. 4177.
  I ask for the yeas and nays and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for 
Senator DeMint to be recognized. That has already happened so we don't 
have to worry about that because he was recognized, because he has 
already moved to suspend Senate rule XXII.
  I appreciate his understanding and finishing his remarks as quickly 
as he did. The amendment he is offering is in regard to border fence 
completion. I ask the Senator, does he still need time to speak, 
additional time?
  Mr. DeMINT. If someone speaks against it, I will reserve 1 minute to 
respond.
  Mr. REID. I would like the agreement to indicate if someone speaks 
against the DeMint amendment, that he be entitled to equal time in 
opposition thereto.
  I further ask unanimous consent there be no amendment in order to the 
DeMint motion to suspend; that upon the use or yielding back of the 
time, the Senate then proceed to vote with respect to the DeMint motion 
to suspend; that if the DeMint motion to suspend is not agreed to, then 
no further amendment or motion on this subject of the DeMint motion be 
in order; that upon disposition of the DeMint motion, the Senate resume 
consideration of the Collins amendment, No. 4253, and there be 2 
minutes of debate remaining prior to a vote in relation thereto, with 
the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Boxer and 
Collins or their designees, with no amendment in order to the Collins 
amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to vote in relation to the Collins amendment; that upon 
disposition of the Collins amendment, the Senate then consider the Burr 
amendment, No. 4273, with an Inouye side-by-side amendment No. 4299; 
that the amendments be debated concurrently for 8 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled between Senators Inouye and Burr or their 
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate 
proceed to vote with respect to Inouye amendment No. 4299 to be 
followed by a vote in relation to Burr amendment No. 4273; that upon 
disposition of these two amendments, all remaining pending amendments 
be withdrawn, with no further amendments in order except a managers' 
amendment which has been cleared by the managers and leaders; and if 
offered, the amendment be considered and agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table; that all postcloture time be yielded 
back with no further intervening action or debate; the substitute 
amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a 
third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on passage of the bill, 
as amended, without further intervening action or debate; that upon 
passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with 
the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, with the 
Appropriations Committee appointed as conferees; provided further that 
the cloture motion with respect to the bill be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I can just say, before anyone says 
anything, if we complete this, these will be all of the votes for the 
evening and the week. We are waiting for the House to do action on the 
extenders package, a jobs bill. The latest information I have is that 
they will not complete that until sometime late this evening. I have 
spoken to the Republican leader on several occasions. We are going to 
have several days to take a look at this because I understand it is 
going to come to us in pieces, not all as one bill.

[[Page 9749]]

  We will take a look at that. We will start to work on that the Monday 
we get back. We are going to work to have a vote on that Monday we get 
back. I think it is June 7. We do not know what the vote will be on, 
but we will have it on probably a nomination. We are trying to figure 
out what that will be. I do not think we will be ready to start any 
actual voting on the so-called extenders package.
  The Republican leader and I have talked about that. There are certain 
amendments that people have indicated they would like to offer to that. 
I think, frankly, it works better to allow people to offer amendments. 
There is no reason to move forward on any procedural effort to curtail 
that at this time.
  The next work period is 4 weeks. That is all we have. We have so many 
things to do, and we are going to do our best to get the extenders 
done. We have a small business jobs matter that we need to move to. It 
is so important for our country's economy. We have talked about this 
for months now.
  We have a bipartisan food safety bill that we need to do. That would 
be a good time to do that. And we have a number of other issues we will 
try our best to work through as quickly as we can. I appreciate 
everyone's cooperation this week. This gives great relief to the 
Pentagon. The House, that is supposed to complete their work on this 
bill today, did not.
  So that is something we will have to take a look at, what they do, 
and get the conference completed as quickly as we can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The DeMint motion to suspend the rules is pending.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, pending what the House does, there will be 
some unanimous consent requests offered on both sides as I understand. 
But everyone should be aware of that later this evening maybe.
  I do not have anyone here to speak on the DeMint amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina has asked for 
the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be. 
If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
DeMint motion to suspend the rules.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chambliss
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are 
52. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.


                           Amendment No. 4253

  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to amendment No. 4253, 
offered by the Senator from Maine.
  The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask that I be notified when I have 30 
seconds remaining, which I am going to yield to the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. President, the Senator from California has misrepresented what my 
amendment would do. It does not repeal or change the requirement that 
EPA has for people to be trained before they remove lead-based paint. 
But the fact is, the EPA rolled out this new proposal, this new 
requirement, without having the training courses available. It is not 
fair to slap huge fines on contractors when it is the EPA's fault the 
classes have not been available. So this amendment just delays those 
fines until September 30 to allow more time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the worst natural disaster since the 
President took office was the recent flooding in Tennessee. There are 
13,000 painters, plumbers, carpenters in Nashville alone, who have 
11,000 structures to work on. They will get fined up to $37,500 a day 
if they disturb six square feet of lead paint in a home unless they get 
this certificate, and there are only three EPA trainers in the entire 
State of Tennessee to train them. This is making it harder and more 
expensive for people to get their homes fixed after the flood. Senator 
Collins has a reasonable amendment to give them until September to get 
their certification. Earlier today my colleague on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, Senator Boxer, said that the EPA had granted a 
waiver to Tennessee because of the President's disaster declaration for 
45 counties. Well that is true. However, the waiver means that if your 
basement was flooded--and there was lead paint--then you could bulldoze 
the house but not repair the basement. That's not the kind of relief we 
were looking for in Tennessee. Thank you, Mr. President, and I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, first, let me say to the Senator from 
Tennessee, in his State all the counties that had flooding are exempt 
from this rule. I have the letter from the EPA, and I spoke with them 
about it.
  Secondly, let us not go back on this important issue. Lead is very 
dangerous, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and children. This 
amendment would stop any funds in this bill from being used to enforce 
the EPA's lead paint renovation program, which was put into place by 
President Bush's EPA.
  There is a training program, and my friend from Maine says there are 
not enough trainers. There are so many trainers that there are 119 of 
them who are ready to travel to each and every State, and already they 
are ahead of the training. Mr. President, 360,000 people will be 
trained in the next 2 months.
  What this amendment does is rewards the contractors who did not get 
the training and it hurts the others. I urge a strong ``no'' vote.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 
4253, which would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 
enforcing its lead paint renovation rule.
  As we all know, lead poisoning can lead to learning and behavioral 
disorders so it is absolutely vital that all precautions are taken to 
protect children from exposure to lead paint. EPA issued the Lead Paint 
Renovation Rule because more than one million of America's children are 
still being poisoned by lead-based paint in their homes.
  This new rule, which was finalized on April 22nd of this year, 
requires that contractors receive lead paint abatement training and 
certification from EPA to do work in certain facilities

[[Page 9750]]

like homes, schools and day care centers.
  I certainly appreciate the concerns that Senator Collins, Senator 
Alexander and other members have raised on behalf of contractors who 
have had difficulty getting access to their required training 
particularly in States like Tennessee that have recently experienced 
natural disasters.
  Two weeks ago when the Committee marked up this bill, I committed to 
Senators Collins and Alexander that my staff and I would work with 
them, and with EPA, to see if their concerns could be addressed.
  Our staffs worked with EPA for several days, but unfortunately, we 
were not able to come to an agreement regarding an administrative 
solution to this problem. However, I want to emphasize that EPA has 
gotten the message that Members are concerned, and they are taking 
steps to improve the situation.
  EPA had already indicated in an April 20, 2010 memorandum that it 
does not plan to take enforcement actions against firms who applied for 
certification before the rule took effect on April 22nd and are just 
waiting for their paperwork to be approved.
  Now they are focusing on making more training opportunities 
available. An estimated 250,000 contractors have already been trained, 
and EPA has committed to help make additional training classes 
available in under-represented areas and areas affected by natural 
disasters so that contractors in those areas aren't unduly impacted by 
this rule.
  EPA is also working to increase the number of training providers. As 
of May 19th, there were 223 accredited providers offering lead paint 
abatement training across the country, including 119 providers that 
travel to multiple States.
  EPA tells me that 238 additional training providers have also applied 
to become accredited. When approved, these trainers will more than 
double the nation's training capacity.
  I understand that some of my colleagues continue to be concerned that 
EPA still has not done enough. However, this amendment is not the 
solution we are looking for.
  Supporters of this amendment have portrayed it as a common-sense 
solution that simply allows contractors additional time to get lead 
paint abatement training required by the rule.
  In reality, passing this amendment would put the United States Senate 
on record as supporting efforts to prevent EPA from fining those who 
knowingly violate the provisions of the rule--even if those actions 
result in lead poisoning of children.
  A contractor who willfully takes no precautions to contain or confine 
lead contaminated paint chips would be given a reprieve. I am also 
concerned that this amendment could excuse renovators from complying 
with the most basic containment and cleanup measures.
  I appreciate the concerns that my colleagues have raised. But this 
amendment is simply a bridge too far. Loosening protections against 
childhood lead poisoning is the wrong message to send.
  That is why the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
Lisa Jackson, and the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and 
Public Works, Senator Boxer, oppose this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining 
votes in this sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is this objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Collins amendment.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 173 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Chambliss
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
  The amendment (No. 4253) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 8 
minutes of debate equally divided to run concurrently on amendment No. 
4273 to be offered by the Senator from North Carolina and amendment No. 
4299 to be offered by the Senator from Hawaii.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


                     Amendments Nos. 4299 and 4273

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, on May 7, Secretary Shinseki sent a letter 
informing me that the Department underestimated the number of eligible 
Filipino veterans, especially those who have become U.S. citizens, in 
calculating the amount needed for this program. More than 42,000 
applications were received. Based on the actual applications received 
before the deadline, the Department has recalculated the estimates and 
identified a shortfall of $67 million.
  The provision included in this supplemental does not cost a dime. It 
simply allows any savings, currently unobligated and not assigned to 
any ongoing project, which the VA realizes is the result of a favorable 
contract environment, to be transferred to the Filipino Veterans Equity 
Compensation Fund and/or retained for authorized major medical facility 
projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It does not mandate 
this transfer. It simply gives the VA the flexibility should the 
Department want to transfer the funds for these purposes.
  Just a reminder: In July of 1941 President Roosevelt invited the 
Filipinos to volunteer and join the American forces, and 470,000 
volunteered. In March of 1942 this Congress passed a law stating that 
Filipinos who volunteered may, after the war, apply for citizenship and 
receive all the benefits of American citizenship. In March of 1946 this 
Congress reneged and repealed that law.
  We must fulfill this commitment the country made to the Filipino 
veterans who fought so bravely under our command because to deny the VA 
authority to transfer to this account would renege on our commitment 
and would send a dangerous signal that the Senate may not honor past 
and future commitments to veterans.
  Is the amendment up for consideration?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It needs to be called up.


                           Amendment No. 4299

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment No. 4299.

[[Page 9751]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4299.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To allow unobligated balances in the Construction, Major 
Projects account to be utilized for major medical facility projects of 
    the Department of Veterans Affairs otherwise authorized by law)

       On page 41, line 14, insert before the colon the following: 
     ``or may be retained in the `Construction, Major Projects' 
     account and used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for 
     such major medical facility projects (as defined under 
     section 8104(a) of title 38, United States Code) that have 
     been authorized by law as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate''.

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 4273

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4273.

  Mr. BURR. 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 strike section 901, relating to the transfer of amounts to 
            the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund)

       On page 41, strike lines 10 through 24.

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I have deep respect for the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. He said earlier this afternoon that President 
Roosevelt made a promise. I can tell my colleagues I had my staff go to 
the Roosevelt Library. We didn't just leave it up to the study done by 
the Senate. We can find no promise--no promise by President Roosevelt, 
no promise by General MacArthur, no promise by individuals who were 
intricately involved in the commitments at the end of the Second World 
War in the Pacific. In fact, we did take care of those Filipinos who 
served as scouts for the U.S. services, and they got full VA benefits.
  What we are talking about--and this is not the purpose of this 
discussion--is a continuation, an addition to the Filipino equity fund. 
Two years ago we passed legislation creating that fund. We appropriated 
$198 million, and we allowed 1 year from the enactment for any Filipino 
who wanted to claim to, in fact, put in an application. That deadline 
was February 16. At the end of December, my staff talked to the VA, and 
they had obligated under $100 million.
  The legislation at the time required the Secretary of the VA to 
submit in the President's budget this year a detailed report of the 
number of applications and, more importantly, a breakdown of how much 
money and to whom it went. That was not supplied in the President's 
submission to Congress.
  When the President's budget came, the President's budget said they 
needed $188 million, $10 million short of the $198 million we had 
already appropriated. Now out of the clear blue sky, Secretary Shinseki 
sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee chairman and said: We 
need another $67 million. Well, the deadline was February 16, before 
the President's budget was constructed. There was no explanation as to 
what it is going to be used for and no understanding of to whom this 
money goes.
  I want my colleagues to listen. What my amendment does is strike this 
from the bill. What Senator Inouye's amendment does is give the 
Secretary the option to leave the money where it is or to divert the 
money to the Philippine equity fund. I will assure my colleagues the 
Secretary will divert it. Where does it come from? It comes from 
already appropriated money that is in the construction fund at the VA 
for hospitals, for outpatient clinics, for national cemeteries, and for 
the maintenance of the facilities for our veterans.
  This is wrong. If there is an obligation we have to keep, it is to 
our veterans--ones who rely on the best facilities to deliver care to 
them.
  Once again, I ask my colleagues to vote against the Inouye amendment 
and vote for the Burr amendment.
  I thank the Chair.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be a sufficient second.
  Is there further debate on the amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the Inouye amendment No. 4299.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chambliss
     Hutchison
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 4299) was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 4273

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 4273.
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), 
and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 58, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell

[[Page 9752]]


     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chambliss
     Hutchison
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 4273) was rejected.


  Amendment No. 4184, As Modified, and Amendment No. 4213, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the previous 
order be modified to provide that amendments Nos. 4184, as modified, 
and 4213 as modified not be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, all remaining pending amendments to the 
substitute are withdrawn, except amendments 4184, as modified, and 
4213, as modified, offered by the Senator from Louisiana.
  The Senator from Hawaii.


 Amendments Nos. 4178, 4205, 4217, 4222, 4224, 4245, 4246, 4249, 4260, 
   4280, 4184, as Further Modified, 4259, 4255, 4248, 4200, 4213, as 
       Modified, 4251, as Further Modified, and 4287, as Modified

  Mr. INOUYE. Pursuant to the order, I call up the managers' package, 
which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the managers' 
package is considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider is 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           amendment no. 4178

          (Purpose: To facilitate a transmission line project)

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


                              right-of-way

       Sec. __.  (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     the Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, amend Right-of-Way Grants No. NVN-49781/IDI-26446/
     NVN-85211/NVN-85210 of the Bureau of Land Management to shift 
     the 200-foot right-of-way for the 500-kilovolt transmission 
     line project to the alignment depicted on the maps entitled 
     ``Southwest Intertie Project'' and dated December 10, 2009, 
     and May 21, 2010, and approve the construction, operation and 
     maintenance plans of the project; and
       (2) not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, issue a notice to proceed with construction of the 
     project in accordance with the amended grants and approved 
     plans described in paragraph (1).
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary of Energy may provide or facilitate federal 
     financing for the project described in subsection (a) under 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-5; 123 Stat. 115) or the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     (42 U.S.C. 15801 et seq.), based on the comprehensive reviews 
     and consultations performed by the Secretary of the Interior.


                           amendment no. 4205

               (Purpose: To make a technical correction)

       On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 3008.  Of the amounts appropriated for the Edward 
     Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program under subpart 
     1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) under the 
     heading ``state and local law enforcement assistance'' under 
     the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' under the heading 
     ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities'' under title II 
     of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8; 
     123 Stat. 579), at the discretion of the Attorney General, 
     the amounts to be made available to Genesee County, Michigan 
     for assistance for individuals transitioning from prison in 
     Genesee County, Michigan pursuant to the joint statement of 
     managers accompanying that Act may be made available to My 
     Brother's Keeper of Genesee County, Michigan to provide 
     assistance for individuals transitioning from prison in 
     Genesee County, Michigan.


                           amendment no. 4217

 (Purpose: To provide for the submittal of the charter and reports on 
the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group to additional committees of 
                               Congress)

       On page 26, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (d) Submittal of Charter and Reports to Additional 
     Committees of Congress.--At the same time the Director of 
     National Intelligence submits the charter and procedures 
     referred to in subsection (a), any modification or revision 
     to the charter or procedures under subsection (b), and any 
     report under subsection (c) to the congressional intelligence 
     committees, the Director shall also submit such matter to--
       (1) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, the Judiciary, and Appropriations of 
     the Senate; and
       (2) the Committees on Armed Services, Homeland Security, 
     the Judiciary, and Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4222

  (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for the Department of Veterans 
 Affairs for the presumption of service-connection between exposure of 
    veterans to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam and certain 
additional diseases until the period for disapproval by Congress of the 
         regulation establishing such presumption has expired)

       At the end of chapter 9 of title I, add the following:


  limitation on use of funds available to the department of veterans 
                                affairs

       Sec. 902. The amount made available to the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs by this chapter under the heading ``Veterans 
     Benefits Administration'' under the heading ``compensation 
     and pensions'' may not be obligated or expended until the 
     expiration of the period for Congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred 
     to as the ``Congressional Review Act''), of the regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs pursuant to 
     section 1116 of title 38, United States Code, to establish a 
     service connection between exposure of veterans to Agent 
     Orange during service in the Republic of Vietnam during the 
     Vietnam era and hairy cell leukemia and other chronic B cell 
     leukemias, Parkinson's disease, and ischemic heart disease.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4224

(Purpose: To make a technical correction related to Amtrak security in 
               the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010)

       On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 3008.  Section 159(b)(2)(C) of title I of division A 
     of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (49 U.S.C. 24305 
     note) is amended by striking clauses (i) and (ii) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(i) requiring inspections of any container containing a 
     firearm or ammunition; and
       ``(ii) the temporary suspension of firearm carriage service 
     if credible intelligence information indicates a threat 
     related to the national rail system or specific routes or 
     trains.''.


                           amendment no. 4245

 (Purpose: To add a provision relating to commitments of resources by 
                          foreign governments)

       On page 58, line 19, after the period insert the following:
       (c) Of the funds appropriated in this chapter and in prior 
     acts making appropriations for the Department of State, 
     foreign operations, and related programs under the headings 
     ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' and ``Embassy Security, 
     Construction, and Maintenance'' for Afghanistan, Pakistan and 
     Iraq, up to $300,000,000 may, after consultation with the 
     Committees on Appropriations, be transferred between, and 
     merged with, such appropriations for activities related to 
     security for civilian led operations in such countries.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4246

             (Purpose: To strike a technical clarification)

       On page 69, strike lines 4 through 8.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4249

   (Purpose: To modify a condition on the availability for funds to 
   support the work of the Independent Electoral Commission and the 
            Electoral Complaints Commission in Afghanistan)

       On page 55, line 20, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through ``such commissions; and'' and insert the following: 
     ``has no members or other employees who participated in, or 
     helped to cover up, acts of fraud in the 2009 elections for 
     president in Afghanistan, and the Electoral Complaints 
     Commission is a genuinely independent body with all the 
     authorities that were invested in it under Afghanistan law as 
     of December 31, 2009, and with no members appointed by the 
     President of Afghanistan; and''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4260

 (Purpose: To clarify that non-military projects in the former Soviet 
 Union for which funding is authorized by this Act for the purpose of 
 engaging scientists and engineers shall be executed through existing 
                    science and technology centers)

       Beginning on page 66, line 24, strike ``activities'' and 
     all that follows through ``notwithstanding'' on page 67, line 
     2, and insert ``projects that engage scientists and engineers 
     who have no weapons background, but whose competence could 
     otherwise be applied to weapons development, provided such 
     projects are executed through existing

[[Page 9753]]

     science and technology centers and notwithstanding''.


                           amendment no. 4280

  (Purpose: To require the Administrator of General Services to make 
 publicly available the contractor integrity and performance database 
          established under the Clean Contracting Act of 2008)

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


  public availability of contractor integrity and performance database

       Sec. 3008. Section 872(e)(1) of the Clean Contracting Act 
     of 2008 (subtitle G of title VIII of Public Law 110-417; 41 
     U.S.C. 417b(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In addition, the Administrator shall post all 
     such information, excluding past performance reviews, on a 
     publicly available Internet website.''.


                amendment no. 4184, as further modified

    (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.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall affect the ability or 
     authority of the Federal Government to recover costs from an 
     entity determined to be a responsible party in connection 
     with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill pursuant to the Oil 
     Pollution Act of 1990 or any other applicable Federal statute 
     for actions undertaken pursuant to this seciton.


                           amendment no. 4259

  (Purpose: To require assessments on the detainees at United States 
                  Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)

       On page 81, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:


                assessments on guantanamo bay detainees

       Sec. 3008.  (a) Submission of Information Related to 
     Disposition Decisions.--Not later than 45 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Director of National 
     Intelligence, in coordination with the participants of the 
     interagency review of Guantanamo Bay detainees conducted 
     pursuant to Executive Order 13492 (10 U.S.C. 801 note), shall 
     fully inform the congressional intelligence committees 
     concerning the basis for the disposition decisions reached by 
     the Guantanamo Review Task Force, and shall provide to the 
     congressional intelligence committees--
       (1) the written threat analyses prepared on each detainee 
     by the Guantanamo Review Task Force established pursuant to 
     Executive Order 13492; and
       (2) access to the intelligence information that formed the 
     basis of any such specific assessments or threat analyses.
       (b) Future Submissions.--In addition to the analyses, 
     assessments, and information required under subsection (a) 
     and not later than 10 days after the date that a threat 
     assessment described in subsection (a) is disseminated, the 
     Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the 
     congressional intelligence committees--
       (1) any new threat assessment prepared by any element of 
     the intelligence community of a Guantanamo Bay detainee who 
     remains in detention or is pending release or transfer; and
       (2) access to the intelligence information that formed the 
     basis of such threat assessment.
       (c) Congressional Intelligence Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``congressional intelligence committees'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 3(7) of the 
     National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(7)).


                           amendment no. 4255

               (Purpose: To make a technical correction)

       On page 81, between lines 23 and 24, insert the following:
       Sec. 3009.  Of the amounts appropriated for the Edward 
     Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program under subpart 
     1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) under the 
     heading ``state and local law enforcement assistance'' under 
     the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' under the heading 
     ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities'' under title II 
     of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-8; 
     123 Stat. 579), at the discretion of the Attorney General, 
     the amounts to be made available to the Marcus Institute, 
     Atlanta, Georgia, to provide remediation for the potential 
     consequences of childhood abuse and neglect, pursuant to the 
     joint statement of managers accompanying that Act, may be 
     made available to the Georgia State University Center for 
     Healthy Development, Atlanta, Georgia.


                           amendment no. 4248

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of State to award task orders for 
   police training in Afghanistan under current Department of State 
                     contracts for police training)

       On page 56, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
       (g)(1) Notwithstanding section 303 of the Federal Property 
     and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) and 
     requirements for awarding task orders under task and delivery 
     order contracts under section 303J of such Act (41 U.S.C. 
     253j), the Secretary of State may award task orders for 
     police training in Afghanistan under current Department of 
     State contracts for police training.
       (2) Any task order awarded under paragraph (1) shall be for 
     a limited term and shall remain in performance only until a 
     successor contract or contracts awarded by the Department of 
     Defense using full and open competition have entered into 
     full performance after completion of any start-up or 
     transition periods.


                           amendment no. 4200

               (Purpose: To make a technical correction)

       On page 34, line 5, strike ``prior'' and all through page 
     34, line 7, and insert the following: appropriations made 
     available in Public Law 111-83 to the ``Office of the Federal 
     Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding'', $700,000 are 
     rescinded.


                    amendment no. 4213, as modified

  (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 90 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 that the 
     project is in 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 90 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), as well as any information about such projects 
     that the Secretary determines to be necessary to ensure that 
     the project is in compliance with subsection (d).
       ``(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, or if, based on the information submitted by the 
     Secretary determines that the project is not in compliance 
     with subsection (d), 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.''.


                amendment no. 4251, as further modified

     (Purpose: To provide funds for drought relief, with an offset)

       On page 71, line 21, strike ``$15,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$25,000,000''.
       On page 28, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 4__. EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF.

       For an additional amount for ``Water and Related 
     Resources'', $10,000,000, for drought emergency assistance: 
     Provided, That financial assistance may be provided under the 
     Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 (43 
     U.S.C. 2201 et seq.) and any

[[Page 9754]]

     other applicable Federal law (including regulations) for the 
     optimization and conservation of project water supplies to 
     assist drought-plagued areas of the West:


                    amendment no. 4287, as modified

  (Purpose: To provide fisheries disaster relief, conduct a study on 
 ecosystem services, and conduct an enhanced stock assessment for Gulf 
  of Mexico fisheries impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil discharge)

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


            funding for environmental and fisheries impacts

       Sec. 2002.
       (1) Fisheries disaster relief.--For an additional amount, 
     in addition to other amounts provided in this Act for the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $15,000,000 
     to be available to provide fisheries disaster relief under 
     section 312 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a) related to a commercial 
     fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster in the 
     Gulf of Mexico that resulted from the Deepwater Horizon oil 
     discharge.
       (2) Expanded stock assessment of fisheries.--For an 
     additional amount, in addition to other amounts provided in 
     this Act for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration, $10,000,000 to conduct an expanded stock 
     assessment of the fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico. Such 
     expanded stock assessment shall include an assessment of the 
     commercial and recreational catch and biological sampling, 
     observer programs, data management and processing activities, 
     the conduct of assessments, and follow-up evaluations of such 
     fisheries.
       (3) Ecosystem services impacts study.--For an additional 
     amount, in addition to other amounts provided for the 
     Department of Commerce, $1,000,000 to be available for the 
     National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the long-
     term ecosystem service impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil 
     discharge. Such study shall assess long-term costs to the 
     public of lost water filtration, hunting, and fishing 
     (commercial and recreational), and other ecosystem services 
     associated with the Gulf of Mexico.
       In General.--Of the amounts appropriated or made available 
     under Division B, Title I of Public Law 111-117 that remain 
     unobligated as of the date of the enactment of this Act under 
     Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction for the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, $26,000,000 of the 
     amounts appropriated are hereby rescinded.


                          CDBG and EDA Funding

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
chairman, Mr. Inouye, and vice chairman, Mr. Cochran, of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, as well as my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. 
Alexander.
  I want to thank my colleagues who have recognized the needs of Rhode 
Island, which is struggling to overcome the effects of the worst 
flooding in centuries in midst of the worst economic environment in 
generations. Indeed, Rhode Island was among the first States to sink 
into recession. In the last 2 years it has consistently ranked among 
the top three States in unemployment, with as much as 13 percent of the 
workforce without jobs. As my colleagues know, Rhode Island has been 
fortunate for many decades until now to have avoided the kind of major 
natural disaster damage that has affected so many other States. When 
those disasters have occurred in other States, there has been no 
question about the support of the people of Rhode Island or our State's 
congressional delegation for Federal disaster assistance. I am grateful 
that in the midst of challenging fiscal environment that the committee, 
on a bipartisan basis has included assistance for flood-impacted 
States, specifically Rhode Island and Tennessee. I am particularly 
grateful for the inclusion of additional community development block 
grant, CDBG, and economic development assistance, EDA, grant funding, 
along with a reduction of the non-Federal cost share for FEMA 
assistance. I also appreciate the challenge of including this funding 
while trying to stay within the President's top-line request for 
emergency funding. In the past, the committee has had greater 
flexibility in responding to emergencies, including in 2008 when over 
$20 billion was provided to States with major disasters in that year. 
Given the comparatively limited funding available, I would like to ask 
the chairman and vice chairman to help clarify the intent of the 
funding included in the underlying bill, specifically that the intent 
with respect tothe CDBG and EDA funding provided in the bill is to 
assist hard-hit communities in Rhode Island and Tennessee. I would ask 
my colleagues for their support in maintaining this position in 
negotiations with the House on the final package.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the Senator from Rhode Island is correct 
about the intent of the funding provided here. As the Senator knows, 
the Appropriations Committee's capacity to provide additional funding 
for disaster recovery is constrained by the President's top-line number 
for emergency supplemental appropriations. Given the relatively modest 
funding available in comparison to previous disaster supplemental 
appropriations bills, the intent is to focus CDBG and EDA assistance on 
Rhode Island and Tennessee, where the underlying economic need is 
greatest. We will work to clarify and maintain that position during 
conference with the House.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I concur with the chairman. The scale of 
need in both States is significant. While I know the committee would 
have liked to accommodate a greater amount of funding for Tennessee and 
Rhode Island, as well as other States, the need to stay within the top-
line number in the administration's request has limited the amount of 
funding available. Given the limited funding available, it is 
appropriate to focus on States where the underlying economic need is 
greatest, and I will work to maintain the position described by the 
chairman.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the vice 
chairman for their comments and their work on this bill, particularly 
the assistance they have worked to provide to my state. As my 
colleagues know, the amount of property damage in Tennessee may be more 
than $10 billion and is the worst natural disaster since President 
Obama has been in office. While the funding in this bill is important 
and significant for Tennessee and Rhode Island, it represents only the 
beginning of what is needed in my state, and I ask for the chairman and 
vice chairman's continuing support for additional funding for recovery 
efforts in Tennessee.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for his 
comments, and we will continue to work with him and the Senator from 
Rhode Island to help address the needs of their States.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and vice chairman 
for their commitment and the assistance they have already extended to 
my State in this bill.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I thank also my colleagues for their 
assistance and look forward to working with them to secure passage of 
this important bill.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, amendment No. 4245 to H.R. 4899, the fiscal 
year 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, provides the Department of 
State with authority to transfer up to $300,000,000 between the 
``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' and ``Embassy Security, 
Construction, and Maintenance'' accounts in chapter 10 of the bill, to 
respond to potential increases in the cost of security for civilian 
personnel. This authority is not intended to be used to support site 
development or construction of permanent consulates or other such 
facilities.
  Mr. President, I want to speak briefly about a heinous crime that 
occurred in El Salvador that has yet to be solved. On June 18, 2009, 
Gustavo Marcelo Rivera, an activist and community leader from the city 
of San Isidro, Cabaas, was kidnapped. His tortured remains were found 
on July 1 at the bottom of a dry well in the village of Agua Zarca. The 
cause of death apparently was asphyxiation, and evidence reportedly 
indicated that his kidnappers may have kept him alive for several days 
before murdering him.
  It is my understanding that four suspects, gang members, have been 
identified by the Attorney General's office as key suspects in the 
crime. Apparently, the prosecutor's hypothesis is that Mr. Rivera was 
with these gang members and was killed after a heated argument; in 
other words, that his death was a common crime, not a political 
assassination.

[[Page 9755]]

  There is reason to suspect otherwise. Mr. Rivera was a well known 
community leader. He was the founder and director of the Casa de la 
Cultura in San Isidro, a member of the departmental board of the FMLN 
party, and the director of the Association of Friends of San Isidro 
Cabaas. He had been a defender of the environment, and he was outspoken 
in his opposition to industrial mining by the Canadian mining company 
Pacific Rim in San Isidro. In addition, I am informed that during the 
January 2009 municipal elections, Mr. Rivera and other leaders 
denounced suspected electoral fraud in his municipality. As a result of 
his activism, Mr. Rivera was the target of threats and accusations and 
someone reportedly tried to run over him with a car. In addition, the 
brutal manner in which he was tortured and killed suggests that this 
was a premeditated crime that may have been intended as a warning to 
other community activists.
  Crimes like this are all too common in El Salvador today, and they 
concern not only the Salvadoran people but those of us who follow 
developments in that country. Rarely are competent investigations 
performed, and almost never is anyone convicted and punished. Impunity 
is the norm.
  I urge the Attorney General to conduct a thorough, transparent, and 
credible investigation to ensure that not only those who tortured and 
killed Mr. Rivera are brought to justice, but anyone who may have 
ordered such a heinous crime is also prosecuted and punished. Democracy 
is fragile in El Salvador and it cannot survive without a functioning 
justice system and responsible judicial authorities who have the 
people's confidence.
  I have strongly supported assistance for El Salvador. In the 
supplemental appropriations bill we have been debating this week, I 
included $25,000,000 for El Salvador to help rebuild schools, roads, 
and other infrastructure that was damaged or destroyed during Hurricane 
Ida last November. Some 150 Salvadorans lost their lives in that 
disaster. Those funds were not requested by the President in the 
supplemental bill. I included them because I felt we should help El 
Salvador rebuild.
  But I also feel strongly about justice in El Salvador, whose people 
suffered from years of civil war during the 1980s. Human rights 
defenders, journalists, and community activists are increasingly 
threatened and killed. How the Rivera case is resolved will be a 
measure of whether the Government of El Salvador is serious about 
defending the rights of its citizens who courageously speak out against 
injustice, and upholding the rule of law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time 
is yielded back.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, is 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
committee amendment, as amended, and third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the bill, as amended, 
pass?
  Mr. INOUYE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) 
and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), 
and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burris
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kaufman
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     LeMieux
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse

                                NAYS--28

     Barrasso
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     McCain
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chambliss
     Hutchison
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Vitter
  The bill (H.R. 4899), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the title amendment is 
agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the Senate insists on its amendments, 
requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the 
two Houses, and the Chair appoints the following conferees.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Warner) appointed Mr. Inouye, Mr. Byrd, 
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, 
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed, Mr. 
Lautenberg, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Tester, Mr. Specter, 
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Bennett, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Alexander, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
Voinovich, and Ms. Murkowski conferees on the part of the Senate.

                          ____________________