[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[Issue]
[Pages 8294-8353]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 8294]]
SENATE--Monday, May 17, 2010
The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Mark R. Warner, a Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, we can't begin this day in the forward march of history
without You. Without the power of Your providential leading, we are
like ships without a sail. If You don't lead us, we are certain to
stray from the right path.
Renew our Senators with help and strength, infusing them with a
spirit of self-sacrifice and service. Whatever may come with this day,
O Lord, help them to live with joyful appreciation of Your guidance and
love. When they face situations that leave them puzzled, show them what
they should do.
We pray in Your merciful Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Mark R. Warner led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd.)
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, May 17, 2010.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Mark R. Warner, a Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia,
to perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. WARNER thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, following any leader remarks and morning
business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Wall Street
reform legislation. Today, the managers of the bill will continue to
work toward an agreement to begin voting at 5:30 this afternoon in
relation to several pending amendments. Senators will be notified when
the votes are scheduled.
____________________
WALL STREET REFORM
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we all know how Wall Street brought our
economy to the brink of collapse nearly 2 years ago. Our financial
system let traders gamble away other people's money with little risk
and large reward. The system said to big bankers: If you win, enjoy
your jackpot. If you lose, don't worry; taxpayers will bail you out. It
is quite a rewarding deal for Wall Street but a pretty raw deal for
everyone else. We have seen firsthand the dangers of that arrangement.
When the bottom collapsed, 8 million Americans lost their jobs. The
typical family lost $100,000 in savings and home equity. The problem is
that it is still the way the system works today, and every new day we
don't act, we take the chance it will happen again.
The bill empowers consumers and holds Wall Street accountable to make
sure history never repeats itself. Ours is a strong bill. The American
people not only overwhelmingly support this legislation, it is
legislation they loudly demand. But it won't do anyone any good until
we send it to the President for his signature. If there is a strategy
of delay involved in this--and I certainly hope there isn't--I have
said before that as soon as tonight, we could file cloture and hold a
final vote this week. This cannot be delayed any longer.
I appreciate the good work of so many Senators to make a tough Wall
Street reform bill even tougher. I extend my appreciation to the
Presiding Officer, who has been involved in a significant number of the
amendments we have tried to work through. His experience in the
business community has certainly strengthened the bill.
So far, the Senate has voted for amendments to strengthen the bill
and has voted against efforts to weaken it. Democrats and Republicans
have voted for each other's amendments. This is the way it should be.
However, the end must come. The time has come to begin work sending
this to conference so we can have a bill to go to the President.
The Senate has voted to reject loopholes for Wall Street lobbyists.
We rejected an amendment that would leave the door open for more
taxpayer bailouts. We denied carve-outs for those who game the system
for their own financial gain.
The message is clear: We must guarantee taxpayers that they will
never again be asked to bail out big banks. We must protect families'
life savings and seniors' pensions. We must ensure no bank can become
too big to fail. And we must make sure the system is more transparent,
which will let us rein in the risky bets before it is too late.
I remind all of my colleagues that the amendment process can continue
after cloture is filed and after it is invoked. I hope the two managers
of this bill, Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby, can continue
working on amendments that will strengthen these urgent and overdue
reforms.
Another reason we have to finish sooner rather than later is that we
have such important work to do this month. At the top of that list is a
new jobs bill--a jobs bill that will cut taxes for middle-class
families and stimulate small businesses by giving small businesses tax
cuts.
Also, we have two supplemental appropriations bills. Senator Inouye
and Senator Cochran are going to combine those, as the two managers of
that legislation, so that when they come to the floor, there will only
be one supplemental appropriations bill. They will join the FEMA
supplemental--because of all of the natural disasters around the
country--with the war funding bill we also need to do. We have scores
of nominees awaiting confirmation. We hope to be able to complete some
of that before we leave here for the recess, so I hope both sides can
find a way to work together to get these bills done.
I repeat: We need to finish the bill that is on the floor. We need to
do the war funding appropriations bill that is going to be combined
with FEMA, and of course we have to do the jobs bill before the first
of the month.
____________________
BP OIL SPILL
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Wall Street isn't the only place where a
reckless pursuit of profits has proven destructive. In the weeks since
the Deepwater Horizon explosion, as much as 20 million gallons have
spewed into the Gulf of Mexico. To put that so it is more
understandable, think of the Exxon Valdez. The Exxon Valdez was an
awful spill, but it was only 11 million--I underline that, only 11
million--gallons. Already, the disaster in the gulf has
[[Page 8295]]
been twice that big as far as the amount of oil spilled.
Last night's edition of ``60 Minutes'' reported damning evidence that
the roots of this tragedy are in British Petroleum executives' efforts
to pad their own wallets. The program was very direct and to the point.
Their greed led to 11 horrific and unnecessary deaths. It has harmed an
enormous tourism industry, weakened business at countless fisheries,
and disrupted life for many along the gulf coast. As the pollution
grows worse, those consequences will only compound.
It is the responsibility of Congress and the administration to
investigate this disaster, and it is the responsibility of British
Petroleum and anyone else found culpable to pay the price of those
damages. By law, oil companies are liable for only $75 million in
damages in instances such as these. This is clearly insufficient. One
way Congress can act now is by raising that limit. Some believe it
should be raised to $10 billion. Others support no cap at all. I
certainly think a $10 billion cap is inadequate.
Whatever the final figure, the catastrophe that continues to poison
our gulf coast is a wake-up call. We must make sure oil companies learn
their lesson. While they spend record profits on finding more oil, they
also must find safer ways to drill and to handle it. They must invest
in rapidly developing clean domestic energy to protect our environment
and increase our energy security.
Secretary Salazar and the President deserve credit for their
continued efforts to clean up the previous administration's efforts to
put oil company profits before people.
In the meantime, we and the Senate must also learn from the mistakes
on Wall Street to the Gulf of Mexico. We have to work as quickly as
possible to protect against it ever happening again.
I note the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the American people are concerned with
the direction the administration is trying to take this country. They
are concerned about the government running banks, insurance companies,
car companies, and the student loan business. And they are concerned
about the way all this is being done as exemplified by the health care
debate in which the administration and its allies in Congress defied
the clear will of the people by jamming this partisan bill through
Congress and stifling its critics along the way.
On this last point, I am referring, of course, to the gag order the
administration imposed on insurance companies that wrote letters to
seniors telling them how the health care bill could affect their
benefits under Medicare Advantage. In issuing this gag order, the
administration relied on the flimsiest of legal arguments. It said that
regulations which allowed the Department of Health and Human Services
to restrict how companies marketed their products could be used to
impose a prior restraint on speech about an issue of public concern--
namely, the pending health care bill. But the communications in
question were not commercial speech; they were issue advocacy, which is
the very type of speech the first amendment is intended to protect.
That is why even the Clinton administration rejected the notion that
its Department of Health and Human Services could restrict this kind of
speech.
Nor was this the only time the Obama administration has attempted to
use the government to stifle speech. Just 1 month prior to its issuance
of this gag order, I had the opportunity to sit in the Supreme Court
when the Solicitor General delivered her first oral argument in any
courtroom. This was the Citizens United case, the same case that
prompted the President to scold the Court during his State of the Union
Address in January and a case that, if it had gone the other way, could
have dealt a serious blow to the first amendment right of free speech.
For those who aren't familiar with the particulars of this case,
Citizens United turned on the question of whether the Federal
Government could ban a nonprofit corporation from producing a movie
critical of former Senator Hillary Clinton and attempting to air it
just prior to the 2008 Democratic primary.
Most people would probably be surprised to learn that in America, the
Federal Government could ban a group from speaking because of who the
group was and because of the type of speech being uttered, but that is
precisely what Federal campaign finance law prohibited. So because this
law constrained the exercise of its first amendment rights, this
nonprofit, Citizens United, sued the government. The case made it all
the way to the Supreme Court, and because the Federal Government was
the defendant, the Solicitor General's Office--Ms. Kagan's office--
handled the case, arguing in favor of prohibiting the advertising and
airing of the film.
There were two oral arguments in this case, and during both of them,
Solicitor General Kagan's office and Ms. Kagan herself argued that the
Federal Government had the power to regulate--and, if need be, to ban--
large amounts of political speech. Indeed, the amount of power Ms.
Kagan and her office argued the Federal Government had in this area was
so broad--so broad--that both liberal and conservative Justices found
their arguments jarring, given the reverence Americans of all
ideological stripes have for the first amendment. But that was, in
fact, their argument.
During the first argument, the Court asked Ms. Kagan's deputy whether
the government had the power to ban books if they were published by a
corporation, and if the books urged the reader to support or defeat a
candidate for office. Incredibly, he said, yes, the government could
ban a corporation from publishing a book--even if it only mentioned the
candidate once in 500 pages.
Not surprisingly, this contention prompted quite a bit of discussion
among the Justices. They wanted to be clear that that is actually what
Ms. Kagan's office was proposing. So, to remove any doubt about their
position, Ms. Kagan's deputy said he wanted to make it, in his words,
``absolutely clear'' that the government did, in fact, have the power
to ban certain speakers from publishing books that criticized
candidates. Justice Souter asked if that meant labor unions, too. Ms.
Kagan's deputy said that indeed it did.
Well, so troubled was the Court by the contention of the Solicitor
General's office that the government had a constitutionally defensible
ability to ban certain books by certain speakers, that it ordered
another argument in the case. This time, Ms. Kagan herself appeared on
behalf of the government. And this time, it was Justice Ginsburg who
noted that at the first argument, Ms. Kagan's office argued that the
Federal Government could, in fact, ban books, such as ``campaign
biographies,'' despite the protections of the first amendment.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether that was still the government's
position. Ms. Kagan responded that after seeing the reaction of the
Supreme Court to her office's argument, they had rethought their
position. Ms. Kagan maintained that while the Federal law in question
did apply to materials like ``full-length books,'' someone probably
would have a good first amendment challenge to it.
So far so good.
But her fall-back position was that the same law gives the government
the
[[Page 8296]]
power to ban pamphlets, regardless of the first amendment's protection
for free speech. This caused the Justices to bristle again. One Justice
asked where, in Ms. Kagan's world, does one ``draw the line''?
First, her office says it is OK for the government to ban books if it
doesn't like the speaker; then it says it is OK to ban pamphlets if the
government doesn't like the pamphleteer--a proposition that would come
as a shock to the Founders, who disseminated quite a few pamphlets
criticizing the government of their day.
Not surprisingly, Ms. Kagan lost the case--and in my view, it is good
that she did.
Now, I asked Ms. Kagan about her position in this case last week when
we met in my office. She said she made the arguments she did because
she had to defend the statute. And I understand that her office has to
defend Federal law. But the client doesn't choose the argument, the
lawyer does. And the argument Ms. Kagan and her office chose was that
the Federal Government has the power to ban books and pamphlets. That
was the position of the Solicitor General and her office.
Not only was this argument troubling to those who cherish free
speech, it likely contributed to the government's defeat. But my
concerns about Ms. Kagan's position in this case extend farther than
the arguments she and her office made, however troubling they are.
Shortly after she and I met, the press reported that she had
cowritten a memo on campaign finance restrictions when she was in the
Clinton administration. In it, she says that ``unfortunately'' the
Constitution stands in the way of many restrictions on spending on
political speech, and she believes that the Supreme Court's precedents
establishing protections from the government in this area are
``mistaken in many cases.''
And just last Thursday, she told one of our colleagues that the Court
was wrong in Citizens United because it should have deferred more to
Congress. But deferred to Congress on what? Deferred to Congress on a
statute that is so broad that it encompasses ``full length books'' and
``pamphlets,'' as Ms. Kagan put it, and probably to a host of other
materials as well? One can only assume that since Ms. Kagan was making
these comments in her individual capacity, they provide a more complete
picture of her views about the government's ability to restrict
political speech.
No politician likes to be criticized in books, pamphlets, movies,
billboards, or anywhere else, Mr. President, whether it is a President
or a Senator.
But there is a far more important principle at stake here than the
convenience and comfort of public officials. And that principle is
this: in our country, the power of government is not so broad that it
can ban books, pamphlets, and movies just because it doesn't like the
speaker and doesn't like the speech. No government should have that
much deference.
The administration has nominated one of its own to a lifetime
position on the country's highest court. We need to be convinced that
Ms. Kagan is committed to the principle that the first amendment is
not, as she put it, just some ``unfortunate,'' impediment to the
government's power to regulate. It applies to groups for whom Ms. Kagan
and the administration might not have empathy. And it applies to speech
they might not like.
So as this process continues, I look forward to learning more about
Ms. Kagan's record and beliefs in area.
I yield the floor.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period for the transaction of morning business until 3
p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes
each.
The Senator from Arizona.
____________________
NOMINATION OF ELENA KAGAN
Mr. KYL. Mr. President I, too, would like to address the Supreme
Court nominee. I associate myself fully with the remarks of Senator
McConnell, which raise an important point for us to consider. I will
correct the record in a couple of situations because I think, as the
debate unfolds, it is important for us to base our decisions on the
same set of facts. These are not going to be particularly newsmaking or
big surprises, but I think the record should be corrected.
I know our majority leader, for example, misspoke the other day in
commenting about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor because there is some
similarity--she being the first woman ever appointed to the Supreme
Court. I wanted to make sure the record reflected the actual situation
with respect to Justice O'Connor.
Leader Reid, I totally agreed with when he described her as ``one of
my favorite Court Justices.'' He said it is ``not because she is a
Republican but because she was a good judge.'' I subscribe to that as
well.
He said:
She had run for public office. She served in the
legislature in Arizona. That is why she could identify with
many problems created by us legislators, and she could work
her way through that.
For the record, I wanted to indicate her experience on the bench as a
judge, since it is not the case that she did not have prior judicial
experience when nominated to the Supreme Court. She was actually
appointed to the bench by our Democratic Governor at the time, Bruce
Babbitt. She was on the court of appeals and on the superior court
bench before that. She served on the Maricopa County Superior Court
bench from 1975 to 1979, and in 1979 Governor Babbitt appointed her to
serve on the Arizona Court of Appeals. So she had extensive experience,
from 1975 through 1981, as a judge, including in an appellate capacity.
Prior to that time, as Leader Reid noted, she served in the Arizona
State Legislature. In fact, she was the majority leader. She had an
extensive legal career before that. She was a deputy county attorney.
She was a civilian attorney. She was in the private practice of law.
She was an assistant attorney general. Therefore, she had a very varied
and rich experience both as a lawyer practicing law in regular
situations in both criminal and civil context, as well as a trial court
judge, which is great experience, I believe, and as an appellate court
judge.
In many respects, it is almost a perfect resume for someone to
demonstrate broad experience and who could understand what cases are
all about when they come from Main Street, as opposed to some of the
more high-profile cases that tend to come before the U.S. Supreme
Court. By every measure, I think anybody would agree that her tenure on
the Supreme Court reflected those values and the experience that she
had when she came to the Court.
As I said, I know the majority leader simply misspoke when he
suggested that she didn't have judicial experience. I did think it
important to make that point.
Second point: There was a statement made on TV yesterday by some
folks who were comparing Elena Kagan and Chief Justice John Roberts; in
effect, that John Roberts only had 2 years on the appellate court, so
they are pretty similar. In two respects that is not correct.
First, spending a couple a years on the court of appeals for the
circuit court is extensive and important experience. It at least gave
us an idea of how he approached judging. I think almost everybody in
the Senate who voted on his confirmation understood that whatever his
personal views were, he could clearly leave them behind and decide
cases, as he referred to it, ``like an umpire calls the balls and
strikes.'' That is one of the reasons he was overwhelmingly confirmed.
I also recall that Justice Roberts' prior legal experience
represented numerous arguments before the courts of appeals and the
U.S. Supreme Court.
[[Page 8297]]
At the time of his confirmation, he had probably had more U.S. Supreme
Court arguments than any other lawyer. So this was a lawyer experienced
in appellate work and U.S. Supreme Court work.
In contrast--and this is not to take away from Ms. Kagan--the truth
is, I don't think she ever tried a case or argued a case to an
appellate court. She certainly hadn't argued before the Supreme Court
until about 6 months ago in her capacity as Solicitor General. She has
other positions in her background. She has been a law school teacher
and a dean of a law school. But I submit that is hardly comparable to
the litigation experience and, particularly, the appellate experience
John Roberts had.
All I am suggesting is, when we make these comparisons to other
people, we need to be accurate about it. It is taking away nothing from
Elena Kagan, but she did not have the experience of Sandra Day O'Connor
or John Roberts. That is something we have to deal with--something
lacking in her record.
One other thing--and this is personal to me because my views were
mischaracterized. I hope this will be seen as a favorable comment
toward Elena Kagan. It was reported today by Al Hunt that I thought
Elena Kagan was too young for the Supreme Court. No, I don't, and I
never said that. He was wrong when he reported that.
I said she was relatively young for an appointment to the Supreme
Court, and that is true. At this point, I think she is 49. She would be
50 if she is confirmed. That is a fine age to be on the U.S. Supreme
Court. My point was, that means, assuming her health is good--and I
believe it is--she could have many decades on the Court. That is all
the more reason it is important that we know her approach to judging.
My only question about her judging has been whether she would leave
her personal views behind as she approaches the decisions in cases that
present two conflicting sides in adjudicating their dispute before the
Court. It is not hard, when somebody has been an appellate court judge
for years, to see how they approach judging and whether they can leave
any of their personal views behind them.
Most judges can, and that is a great thing about our system.
Occasionally, we find a judge who has a particular conservative or
liberal bent, and it is pretty clear they have a hard time leaving
their political views behind and that they tend to want to figure out
how they would like a case to come out and then rationalize a way for
it to come out that way. Any good lawyer or judge can probably find an
argument to support a position. But that is not the way judging should
occur.
My concern expressed about Elena Kagan is that there are a couple of
things in her background that suggest that she might have a hard time
leaving her political views behind and approaching cases, as Chief
Justice Roberts said, as ``an umpire would call balls and strikes in a
game.''
Remember, he was asked whether he would favor the little guy in a
dispute or the big guy. He said if the law was on the little guy's
side, he would favor the little guy but, if the law was on the big
guy's side, he would favor the big guy.
Why is that important? We all know Lady Justice has on a blindfold,
and there is a reason for that. The oath of office of a judge and our
tradition in this country is for a judge to approach a case not based
on how he wants that case to come out in his heart of hearts, not how
he would write the law if he were a legislator but, rather, how he has
to apply the law to the facts of that particular case.
Occasionally, a court will even say we do not necessarily like the
way this case has to come out, and we invite the legislature to change
the law. In fact, the Supreme Court did that in a bill which I
sponsored recently. I regretted the way the case came out. I do not
think the Court had to rule the way it did. But eight of the nine
Justices believed that Congress had gone too far in prohibiting a
certain kind of film-making activity called crush videos where usually
a woman with high-heeled shoes is shown crushing a small animal to
death.
That did not seem to me to be free speech, and it is something
Congress could prohibit. But the Supreme Court disagreed. Eight of the
nine Justices said: No, even though we do not necessarily like the way
this case came out because we abhor that kind of thing, it is our view
that the first amendment has to allow that kind of ``speech.''
Again, I disagree that it is speech, but I admire the Justices, both
liberal and conservative, who decided they have to apply the law even
though the result was not something they liked, and they invited the
Congress to fix the law, giving us a little bit of instruction as to
how we can do that.
I am working with colleagues in the House of Representatives to
restructure the law so we can pass it again, overwhelmingly I am sure,
and this time get it right within the first amendment because I do not,
obviously, want to violate the first amendment.
The point here is that Justices can rule in ways that force them to
make a decision even though they do not like the way the case comes
out. Then the legislature, if it involves a law we have passed, can fix
it. That is the way our system is supposed to work. Rather than--and I
much prefer that even though, in effect, I lost the case. I would much
rather that than the Justices say: We think these crush videos are
terrible, and even though the first amendment probably protects it, we
are going to try to craft an argument where we can declare this law
valid because from a public policy standpoint, we think that is a
better result. I am pleased they ruled against my bill by saying: No,
we cannot do that. We have to adhere to the law, as we read it.
What I am going to be looking for in Elena Kagan is a judge who,
despite her political views--and she has been candid about what they
are and others have been candid as to what they are. One of her Harvard
colleagues said her heart beats on the left. OK, I do not expect
President Obama to appoint somebody whose heart beats on the right as
mine does. He is going to appoint someone with his more liberal
political views, and that is fine.
The question is: Can she then approach cases the same way the judges
did in the Supreme Court case I just described where even though they
did not like the result, they felt they had to rule that way in order
to remain consistent with their view of the first amendment.
There have been a couple of things in which her personal view clearly
affected her judgment as, in this case, the dean of the Harvard Law
School. The one case everybody is familiar with is she disagreed with
the congressional policy on don't ask, don't tell. But instead of
having a policy that said President Clinton, who signed the bill, was
unwelcome on the Harvard campus or the Senators and Representatives who
had passed the bill--by the way, it was a Democratic House and Senate--
that they were not welcome on the campus, she wrote at the time
extensively that this was a discriminatory policy of the military and
that, therefore, the military would not be allowed on campus to
recruit, as were all other businesses.
Eventually, she had to change her position because the Solomon
amendment said the university would not get any Federal funding, and
they got about 15 percent of their funding from the Federal Government.
They finally, after about a year, went back to the policy of allowing
military recruiters on campus.
In my view, she not only mischaracterized the situation by calling it
the military's discriminatory policy, when the military is obviously
simply following the orders of their Commander in Chief, President
Clinton, and the law passed by the Congress, but also she discriminated
by not criticizing or denying entry onto the campus the people who had
passed and signed the law into effect but instead discriminated against
the military who at the time was fighting a war. That represents a
misjudgment on her part based on, obviously, her personal convictions.
It interfered with the job she was supposed to be doing at the time.
[[Page 8298]]
Would she apply that same kind of rationale when she sits on the U.S.
Supreme Court? She obviously has strong personal views about this
issue. How will she apply those personal views in cases of, let's say,
``the don't ask, don't tell policy that may come before her or some
other policy that she believed discriminated against gays or
homosexuals. She will have to somehow find a way to demonstrate to us
that she will not allow those personal convictions to color her
judgment on the Court. It might be kind of hard, given it did color our
judgment in this previous situation.
More recently, she wrote to Members of the Senate deeply critical of
a bill Senator Lindsey Graham and I had introduced and was eventually
passed by the Senate and signed into law that provided a mechanism for
dealing with the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. We defined ``military
combatants'' in this legislation. We provided for a determination of
their status, for a review of that determination of status, by a direct
appeal to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nothing like that had ever been done, where after determination of
status as an enemy combatant, those people would be able to go directly
to a Federal court--and not just any Federal court, the DC Circuit
Court of Appeals, which is one step below the Supreme Court--to have
that determination reviewed. That was not sufficient for her. She said:
No, this was discriminatory; that they had to have a right to appeal to
other Federal courts any sentencing or determination of guilt, if they
stood trial in military commissions. That has never been the law. The
Supreme Court has never said that is the law. Yet she compared what we
did in that bill to the discriminatory and unlawful actions of a
dictator.
I do not like to be called or compared to a dictator, and I can
assure my colleagues Lindsey Graham, my colleague who was primarily
responsible for drafting that legislation, very much had in mind the
best way to deal with this situation from a legal standpoint, as well
as to protect American citizens. He was not trying to enact policies
similar to dictators'.
In addition to the language being quite injudicious, it seems to me
it raises questions about whether if these kinds of questions were
posed to her in the future she could lay aside what are obviously her
strong personal convictions about this issue.
There are bound to be cases involving enemy combatants and others in
this war on terror that will continue to come to the U.S. Supreme
Court. Will she recuse herself from these cases because she has
expressed strong personal views? That would seem to me to be
appropriate, unless she could somehow demonstrate she can put all that
behind her and decide these cases strictly on the law, irrespective of
her personal prejudices.
I hope I am not perceived by these comments to have made a judgment
about Elena Kagan. When I voted for her confirmation as Solicitor
General, I said I thought she was well educated, very intelligent, very
personable, and I wanted her to have a chance to do the job as
Solicitor General. I had hoped she would remain in the position for a
little bit longer than a year before being nominated for a position as
prestigious as the U.S. Supreme Court. Nonetheless, I am firmly
committed to examining her record as thoroughly as possible and then
making a judgment based on that entire record.
Despite the fact I have raised two questions, I do not want that to
be suggestive of any conclusion I have reached because I have not
reached a conclusion. In fact, I am a little bit critical of my
colleagues who have immediately reached a conclusion without even
examining the record. There is something like 160,000 pages of
documents in the Clinton Library relative to her record as a policy
adviser in the Clinton White House. Obviously, some of her views will
be reflected in those documents and I think it is important to see what
they say.
It may well be that she represents a very tempered thought that is
pragmatic and not overly ideological and which appears to suggest that
in the position she held, she could lay aside her personal views and
give good advice. It is quite possible that is what those records will
reflect. It may also reflect something different.
Until I have the benefit of reviewing those documents and then
talking with her personally and hearing her testify, it seems to me a
bit premature to be making a judgment about whether she should be
confirmed.
Again, I wanted the opportunity to reassure all of my colleagues that
Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court,
did, indeed, have a good judicial experience on the bench prior to her
nomination. That is not an absolute requirement, in my view, because
her colleague from Arizona on the Court for a while, Chief Justice
Rehnquist, had not had judicial experience. Every other nominee in the
last 40 years has. He had not. Nonetheless, he had extensive experience
of over 20 years in law practice, both in the private law practice as
well as the Department of Justice. So he, too, had a very long record
from which one could judge whether his personal views could be set
aside in judging cases.
That, at the end of the day, is the test that should apply to all
nominees, should apply to Elena Kagan. I am sure my colleagues and I
will have ample time to review the report, reflect on it, discuss it
with her, and then come to our judgments as to whether she satisfies
that judgment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
GLOBAL WARMING
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for such time as I may consume.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if you have been watching the global
warming debate lately, you will notice the supporters of cap and trade
are getting kind of nervous. They realize the political environment for
cap and trade couldn't be more favorable--they have a majority of
liberals in the Senate, a majority of liberals in the House, and
liberals in the White House. But they also realize time is running out.
The November elections are looming, and there are a lot of people
coming up for reelection who don't want to go back to the electorate
and say: Look at me; aren't you proud; I voted for the largest tax
increase in American history.
As Senator Kerry put it, this is the last call to pass the bill, and
that is exactly what Senator Kerry is trying to do. But he will not get
60 votes. He will not get the support of the Democrats in the
heartland, and he will not convince the American public they need this
tax increase. I say this with confidence because the bill Senator Kerry
introduced last week with Senator Lieberman is the same old cap-and-
trade scheme the Senate rejected in the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003,
the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2005, the Warner-Lieberman bill in 2008,
and the Waxman-Markey bill in 2009. Let us keep in mind that cap and
trade is cap and trade, and that is a very large tax increase.
Don't forget that the Senate support for cap and trade over that time
has actually dropped. If you take it from 2003 to the present time, in
2003, they got 43 votes; in 2005, they got 38 votes; and in 2008, they
got 48 votes. But you have to keep in mind that 10 of those were for a
procedural vote and they said they wouldn't vote for it, so it went
down to 38 votes at that time. So that is a far cry from the 60 that
will be necessary.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill is not going to pass. However, those who
still believe in the anthropogenic catastrophic warming--which I don't,
but even if you did believe it--should keep in mind that this wouldn't
solve the
[[Page 8299]]
problem. What I am saying is this: There are a lot of people around--
not nearly as many as 5 or 10 years ago--who believe that anthropogenic
gases--CO2, methane, carbon dioxide--are causing
catastrophic global warming.
They are still here. They still believe that. But even if you
believed it, passing this bill would not help the situation because in
this bill, all it applies to is the United States of America. We could
go ahead and restrict all the CO2 we want to in the United
States, it is not going to lower it at all.
I have a lot of respect for the new--not too new, now she has been
here for a while--EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson. I appreciate her
honesty. I asked her the question back when we had the Waxman-Markey
bill before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works,
I said to the Administrator: In the event we were to pass any of these
cap-and-trade bills in the United States, would it have the effect of
lowering the CO2 worldwide?
She said no, it wouldn't. In fact--we showed a chart. I should have
it with me down here right now. She said it would not because this only
applies to the United States.
I contend it would actually increase world emissions. The reason I
say that is if we were to unilaterally do this, restrict our ability to
build power in America, then our jobs would have to go to countries
where the power is. Consequently, they would go to countries such as
Mexico, China, and India, places where they do not have any meaningful
restrictions on CO2. That would have the effect of
increasing it, not decreasing it.
I have a lot of respect for Lisa Jackson. I kind of abused her time
during this oilspill. I called her many times. I know she is right on
top of things and is doing a very good job.
Here we go again. Look closely at the Kerry-Lieberman bill. I am sure
you have seen it before. It is the Waxman-Markey bill. You remember
that. It passed in the middle of the night in the House of
Representatives. We all remember that, passing by 219 to 212. Every
kind of deal in the world was made and nobody knew it except the vote
finally took place and they eked it out. Democrats, 44 of them, voted
no because they knew the cost of the bill. The Waxman-Markey bill,
according to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, would lead to a
net reduction of 3.6 million jobs, raise electricity rates by 48
percent, and disproportionately affect the West, Midwest, South, and
Great Plains, which rely heavily on fossil fuels.
The word about Waxman-Markey spread across the country and the
American people were listening. Citizens at townhall meetings expressed
their outrage. They said no to a bill that would give big government
control over how we use electricity and how we live every day of our
lives. That is what the public would get with Kerry-Lieberman.
They also get a gas tax or linked fee. This is Washington jargon for
a thing like gas tax: they don't call it a gas tax, they call it a
linked fee for transportation fuels. From what I understand, this
linked fee is being pushed by a select group of big oil companies. That
is right, oil companies. I said some time ago the only way they can
somehow pass any kind of cap and trade is to somehow divide and
conquer. In other words, go to some of the oil companies, gas
companies, coal companies, nuclear companies, and tell them we are
going to pick winners and losers, but guess what. You are a winner. We
will pick you and everything is going to be wonderful. The public needs
to know a lot of big oil companies are involved. They are pushing a tax
they know will be paid for by consumers, the same consumers suffering
from an economy with 10 percent unemployment. I will make myself clear:
I stand with the consumers, and by that I mean farmers, families,
truckers, businesses large and small in rural Oklahoma, who drive long
distances. They don't need this tax increase now or ever.
It is a sad thing that we have to use those tactics. Then it is even
not all that smart, when you stop and think that has not worked before.
They tried the same thing, to divide and conquer, before. In this case
they brought in some of the refiners and said if you will join with us,
this will be fine with you. You have to raise your rates, but then you
can pass that on to the consumers. Then we pass a gas tax increase and
those consumers will be hit twice, but you will be all right.
That is not the way it works. The other provision is crafted and
select business groups. Do they think a bill on cap and trade is good
for the economy, good for your members? I don't think so.
Don't forget what happened with Waxman-Markey; some utilities thought
they had a deal. When the language was actually drafted, the deal made
Waxman and Markey happy but not the utilities.
This is interesting, because they had the great unveiling that took
place last week but didn't have the bill language. It had an outline of
some things but not the exact bill language. That is exactly what they
tried to do with Waxman-Markey. This time we will insist on seeing the
actual language.
I remind my colleagues of a pattern here. We had the Waxman-Markey
vote under the cover of night. We had the ``Cornhusker'' kickback, with
the Senate health care bill. Now we have secret meetings with
stakeholders and CEOs. There is a sense that what they are doing has
little support with the American people. They are hiding and obscuring
and evading.
I suppose I can't blame them. Remember the August recess of last
year? That was the beginning of what we call the tea party movement.
This was interesting because this all happened during the August recess
when those of us in the House and Senate were back in our States. The
people of the tea party movement were objecting to four things. There
are four things they are complaining about.
No. 1 was the runaway cost of government, the increased deficits.
Let's stop and think about it. In the first year of the Obama
administration the deficits increased by $1.4 trillion. That is what
happened the first year. That was after the tea parties, the August
recess of 2009.
The second issue then was not to have a government-run health care
system. We temporarily lost that. There will be some changes in the
Senate and House after the November elections. A lot of that can be
corrected. Nonetheless, those are the first two issues of the tea
partiers who are out there today. These are people who have not
identified with any party but they want to save America from this
socialist trend we have right now.
The third issue was complaining about the closing of Guantanamo Bay
or Gitmo. I look at this and I wonder, we have a President with an
obsession to close Gitmo, a place where we have been able to put people
who do not fit into a prison system since 1903. It is one of the best
deals the government has. I think we only pay a lease of $4,000 a year.
It is just like it was in 1903. Here is a place where you can put
terrorists, the terrorists who are the detainees. These people are not
criminals in the sense of our criminal code. These are terrorists. They
don't fit in our court system. There is not an American out there who
has not heard about what they are doing with the constitutional rights
and Miranda rights and all that. That does not apply in these cases. It
should not apply in these cases. But this President has wanted to bring
these terrorists--close GITMO, with no place else to put them--bring
them back to the United States for either trial or incarceration.
At the beginning the President had identified some 17 institutions in
America where you could put these terrorists. One happened to be in my
State of Oklahoma. It was Fort Sill. Fort Sill has a great artillery
installation there and they do have a small prison. I went down after
he had made these suggestions of putting terrorists throughout the
United States and I talked to--there is a Sergeant Major Carter down
there in charge of that prison. She said go back and tell those people
in Washington keep GITMO open. She happened to have had two tours of
duty in Gitmo. She said that is
[[Page 8300]]
state of the art. People are treated well; they don't torture anyone;
it is the only safe place to keep terrorists; they have a courthouse
they can use for tribunals that cannot be found anyplace else in the
United States.
The third issue of these tea partiers was to reject the idea that we
should close Gitmo and bring these terrorists to the United States.
That comes to the fourth one, the one of our discussion today, and
that is the fact that they were protesting cap and trade. Cap and trade
is a tax increase. A lot of people say if you want to reduce
CO2 emissions, why don't you put a tax on CO2
emissions? Some of the strongest supporters of the global warming
concept are the ones who say let's have a tax on CO2. Do you
know why they don't? They don't have it because that way, people know
what it costs, and they will reject it.
If you have cap and trade, that is a way you can pick winners and
losers and convince everyone he or she is going to be a winner. So one
of the things they were protesting during the August recess of 2009 was
this thing that would result in being the largest tax increase in the
history of the country.
I have often said the most egregious vote in this Senate's history,
up to that time, up to October 1, 2008, was the $700 billion bailout.
That led to the AIG bailout and the Chrysler bailout and the General
Motors bailout. All of that took place and that was on October 1, 2008;
$700 billion to have an unelected bureaucrat to do whatever he wanted
without any constraints. As bad as that is, a cap-and-trade bill would
end up--at least $700 billion, that is a one-shot deal. With the cap
and trade it is every year.
I know it is difficult for people in America when you start talking
about billions and trillions of dollars, so I always do my math in
relation to the State of Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, I take the number of
families who file a tax return and do the math. For example, the $700
billion came out that would cost each taxpaying family in Oklahoma
about $5,000 for that. A cap-and-trade tax--they have actually done
some calculations, the Wharton School of Economics, MIT, CRA, and other
groups. The range is always between $300 and $400 billion, but that is
every year. That would cost my people in Oklahoma, according to the
calculations of CRA, a little bit over $3,100 a year and you don't get
anything for it.
The opposition has only grown stronger and more intense. Thus, the
back-room dealing and secret deals to get 60 votes are not going to
work.
I should note, if Kerry-Lieberman were successful in passing, which
it will not be, but if it were, it would go to conference--that is the
way things are worked here--with the Waxman-Markey bill. If this bill
passed the House, that would go to conference, and if this goes to
conference that means that Waxman-Markey lives.
We all remember what it did, the Waxman-Markey bill. The authors of
that bill, as well as Senators Kerry and Lieberman, have argued that we
need one standard, one framework to regulate greenhouse gases. However,
the problem is in addition to imposing what would be the largest tax
increase in history, these bills do not preempt other laws now being
used to regulate greenhouse gases and drive up costs for industries.
This would mean there would be multiple standards, multiple
regulations, creating more confusion, more bureaucracy and, of course,
more taxes.
But we still have a liberal press that is in denial, the same as some
of the Senators who are promoting this. I picked up USA Today last
Friday on my way back to Oklahoma and I think on page 3 at the top was
this article talking about how the lizards are going to become extinct
as a result of global warming. They don't say ``alleged global
warming,'' they just say it is global warming. So a lot of people, even
though they realize the truth of this, because the truth has come out
with climate change and all that stuff, they keep reading this over and
over so they assume it is true.
Today I should have been speaking in Chicago, at the Heartland
Institute's climate conference, but because we had votes this afternoon
I was not able to do it. I didn't want to miss these votes. I thank my
former staffer Marc Morano, who will be speaking at the event, for his
efforts at exposing global warming alarmism. At the Heartland
Institute, it is my understanding, is the Fourth International
Conference on Climate Change. It will be held in Chicago today, held as
we speak. The theme of the ICCC-4 will be ``Reconsidering the Science
and Economics.''
New scientific discoveries are casting doubt on how much of
the warming of the twentieth century was natural and how much
was manmade, and governments around the world are beginning
to confront the astronomical cost of reducing emissions.
Economists, meanwhile--
I am reading now from their statement--
are calculating that the cost of slowing or stopping global
warming exceeds the social benefits.
The purpose of the ICCC-4 is the same as it was for the
first three events, to build momentum and public awareness of
the global warming ``realism'' movement, a network of
scientists, economists, policymakers and concerned citizens
who believe sound science and economics, rather than
exaggeration and hype, ought to determine what actions, if
any, are taken to address the problem of climate change.
They do not all agree on the causes and the extent, but it is kind of
interesting because one of the attendees there came out--I just read
this. I have it in front of me now. It is a geologist who is a very
prominent U.S. geologist--urging the world to forget about global
warming because global cooling has already begun.
Dr. Don Easterbrook's warning came in the form of a new
scientific paper he presented to the fourth International
Conference on Climate Change in Chicago . . .
That is today. Dr. Easterbook is an emeritus professor at Western
Washington University, who has authored 8 books and 150 journal
publications. His full resume is here.
So today the event is taking place. On his Web site,
climatedepot.com, we highlight some of the details.
Over the next several weeks, I will be speaking on the EPA's so-
called tailoring rule because this all goes back to the Clean Air Act
and the Clear Air Amendments. What it says is, they are going to change
that, since that belongs to--that would cover almost every church,
every small business, everything in America, to only cover the great
big giants.
It is not going to work. Everyone is going to be in on this deal.
That would not be constitutional. I think everyone knows it. Along with
the tailoring rule, I will continue to point out that the endangerment
finding is based on IPCC's flawed science.
By the way, the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. It is a part of the United Nations. They are the ones that
started this whole thing back in 1988. The problem we have with that is
they had an agenda when they started. I can recall, over the years,
scientists coming to me and I would stand at this podium and I would
make truthful statements about how the science is being fixed.
I have one, if anyone doubts my sincerity when I say this, it is on
my Web site. You can look it up. Five years ago, I talked about how the
top scientists in America were coming to me and saying: Look, they will
not allow people who disagree with their hypothesis, who disagree with
their opinions, to even be part of the IPCC.
Well, I was vindicated last December when the Climategate thing came
out, and all these people who had been sending stuff in, they uncovered
some memos going back and forth on how they were going to try and make
people believe that actually anthropogenic gases cause global warming.
Anyway, that came at a very appropriate time. I think the people are
aware of what is happening.
Let me make one last comment about this endangerment finding. We have
tried--not ``we'' but those who are promoting the idea of the
anthropogenic gases cause global warming, they have been trying to
introduce the bills to have a cap-and-trade system for the United
States. They have been doing this now about for about 9 years. It has
not worked.
[[Page 8301]]
So President Obama has stated: All right, if the House and the Senate
are not going to vote to do this, we will do it administratively. All
we have to do is have an endangerment finding, which we could
influence, and once the endangerment finding is there, then that would
include, with the real pollutants, SOX, NOX, and
mercury, CO2. If they do that, then they can start
regulating CO2.
Well, it is not quite that easy. Lisa Jackson, I have already said
some nice things about her, and I appreciated her honesty in response
to this question. Right before Copenhagen, I suspected that the Obama
administration was going to have an endangerment finding. When they
did, I knew it had to be based on science, so I asked her: What science
would this, by and large, be based on, if you have the endangerment
finding.
She said the IPCC. Well, wait a minute. That is the same science
that, through Climategate, has been totally rebuffed and no longer is
legitimate, either in reality or in the eyes of the American people and
people around the world.
So while I am concerned obviously that we should try to do something
such as this through an endangerment finding, do administratively what
he is unable to do through the House and Senate, that is not going to
work. So I would only say, I know all the Tea Party people are still
out there. Keep in mind, you lost your fight with the government-run
health care, you lost your fight with the huge deficit, and so far we
have not lost on the closing of Gitmo. I think we will be able to keep
it open. But the one issue that is up for grabs right now is this
endangerment finding.
Let's keep reminding all the people whom you meet with prior to the
elections of November, and particularly during the upcoming August
recess, that a cap-and-trade system would end up being the largest tax
increase in the history of America and it would happen every year and
it would not accomplish anything.
I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak
as in morning business but on an amendment that I will bring up later
on the bill.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
FINANCIAL REGULATORY REFORM
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have had some concerns over the consumer
protection part of the financial reform bill, mostly because I do not
think there are very many limitations on it. Particularly in the area
of personal privacy, I have some major concerns. So I have developed an
amendment that I think will solve that. It is the kind of amendment I
have often seen brought up by both sides of the aisle to make sure no
agency is going through your personal finances without your permission
or any other thing that is personal.
So if you think full-body scans at the airport security is bad, they
do pale in comparison to the consumer protection provisions in the
financial regulatory bill we are debating. Even if you are okay with
the heightened airport security measures, will you be OK with a full
scan of your financial records?
If left alone, this bill will set up a Federal bureaucracy that will
be able to comb through the personal financial records of millions of
Americans in the name of protecting consumers.
Also, in the name of protecting us from ourselves, this bill would
require banks to keep and maintain records of all bank account activity
and financial activity of their clients for at least 3 years, while
also requiring this information to be sent regularly to the bureau for
safekeeping.
I have serious concerns about our government collecting information
on the daily activities of its citizens and equal concerns about the
government approving or disapproving the financial choices of its
citizens. For those who agree with me, and even those who disagree with
me on the consequences or meaning of the language in this bill, I have
a straightforward and easy solution.
My amendment, 4018, simply says that if the new bureau created in
this bill wants to investigate a consumer's individual transactions,
then the bureau must get written permission from that individual. All
this means is that the bureau cannot investigate someone's banking
activities or credit card purchases without that person's permission.
The bill is simply that. This is one page going into thousands of
pages. It says:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any
provision of the enumerated consumer laws or any provision of
Federal law, the Bureau may not investigate an individual
transaction to which a consumer is a party without the
written permission of that consumer.
It is pretty straightforward. It makes sure they aren't going to
investigate a consumer's individual transactions without written
permission from that individual, and they can't investigate someone's
banking activities or their credit card purchases without that person's
permission.
My amendment would also make it so that the government can't watch
over my financial transactions without my saying so or without you
saying so on yours. My amendment gives consumers a choice. I don't
think the bureau should be allowed to look over my credit card
statement to see if I am spending too much money. I don't think the
bureau should be allowed to monitor my purchases and note that I bought
a new car, a new boat, or a gun.
I recognize there are consumers out there who may want the government
in their lives, monitoring their transactions. I don't claim to
understand that desire. But my amendment would not take away their
choice in the matter. In fact, as a consumer, if I get into credit card
trouble and want the bureau's help, all I have to do is contact the
bureau and give them permission to look at my financial documents. My
amendment would also give consumers that ability. As long as the bureau
has my written permission as a consumer, they can look at my financial
past, present, and future.
Our State offices have that kind of a procedure when they do case
work for individuals. Our State offices have a process where they will
look into problems that an individual is having with the Federal
Government. But in order to do that, they have to get a signed privacy
release. That is so we can't just be looking into constituents'
problems that we think might be a problem for them without their
knowledge or their permission. That is all I am doing with this
government bureau, is making sure the consumer knows that bureau will
be going through their records with their permission.
In reality, this bill encourages consumers to rely on the government
to protect them from bad decisions instead of empowering due diligence.
The role of the Federal Government should not be to stand over our
shoulders telling us if our decisions are right or good. I was here on
the Senate floor just a few short days ago saying that you and I have
the inherent freedom to make choices, even the freedom to make bad
choices. In America, that is the way it works. Big Brother is not
allowed to hang over your shoulder to decide whether you are making a
poor decision.
Because of this bill and the actions of the current administration,
people are more concerned about their freedoms right now than they ever
have been, and this underlying bill--specifically title X, with its
ironic name, ``consumer protection''--would take away those freedoms
without this amendment.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created through this bill
would suddenly become the most powerful agency within the Federal
Government. By placing this bureau within the Federal Reserve,
Congress's last
[[Page 8302]]
ability to oversee this agency would be when the director of the bureau
is nominated by the President and the Senate gets to vet that
candidate. That is it. Congress would have no oversight of the bureau's
budget. Congress would have no oversight of the rules created by the
bureau either.
By the way, this bureau would not only have the authority to create
its own rules for banks and consumers to follow, it would have the
authority to enforce those rules as well. No other agency has that kind
of unchecked power. Let me tell my colleagues, unchecked power does not
lend itself to accountability.
Why am I so concerned about this supposed consumer protection bureau?
I am concerned about our freedoms. I know the Federal Government should
not operate with the belief that it always knows best. Protecting
consumers doesn't always mean naming advocates to work on their behalf.
It also means allowing them the freedom and power to advocate for
themselves.
I mentioned this earlier, but I want to illustrate an example of why
I am concerned about this bureau's unchecked power and why every
citizen in the country should be up in arms, beating down the doors of
Congress to keep big government powers from getting even bigger in
their lives. The example I am about to give would be small compared to
the powers of this proposed bureau.
Let me tell my colleagues, this is not a small issue to the public.
Not too long ago, the Transportation Security Administration, TSA,
announced its intention to put full body scanning into major airports.
Let me remind my colleagues, this was not even in every major airport,
only a few. Many may not have seen one of these scanning machines.
Travelers go into a three-sided piece of equipment fully clothed, and
the machine essentially creates an x-ray-like scan of the traveler. The
resulting image from the scan can be used to determine whether someone
is carrying an explosive, has objects hidden under their clothing, or
merely had a joint replaced. This new step in security was all done in
the name of protecting citizens from terrorists. This new measure was
for our physical safety.
I have heard from hundreds of Wyoming citizens and from hundreds of
citizens across the country desperate not to have the government
intrude into their lives even in the name of physical safety from
terrorism. There was such a rush of emotion from these folks, anger at
the inconvenience and intrusion, nervousness and anxiety that the
government would be able to image them for 30 seconds or the
possibility that the government could keep the scanned image in a file.
I even had some of the more middle-of-the-road folks tell me they just
wanted a choice of whether to have the full body scan or simply an in-
person screening. That is what is done over most of the country.
My point with this story is that with TSA screening, we are talking
about a single image of a person as they travel through the Nation's
airports. What the bureau of consumer protection proposes to do in the
name of financial security is not just a snapshot of us during a single
day of travel. What the bureau proposes to do is scrutinize the
transactions of our daily lives, our spending habits, monitor our
financial decisions as we plan for retirement, as we plan and spend for
our families, and, as consumers, as we make choices on loans for
education, vehicles, homes, and any other expenses. This isn't a single
step encroaching on privacy like a body scan image. What the bureau
proposes to do skips over the privacy boundary. It is not a single
scan; it is a life audit.
This bureau may create some much needed protections for consumers,
but it could also go much further. Without my amendment, the bureau
will be required to collect daily transactional information on every
consumer. The government would see every time you needed money for a
college loan, for $20 from the nearest ATM. The bureau would require
your community bank to not only keep all the information on file but to
regularly share that data with the government.
Some may say they don't care if the government knows they buy
groceries at Safeway every Tuesday, but I daresay allowing the
government to assess and analyze every transaction could easily
escalate beyond mundane details and consumer protection to truly having
Big Brother watching over us. You may not care about the government
knowing your shopping habits or how and when you fill your car with
gas, but you will care if the government has the ability to say how,
when, and why you spend your own money.
We already give the government control of our tax dollars. I would
say that isn't going so well for us. A $12 trillion, almost $13
trillion deficit shows this. So why should the public be OK with
allowing the Federal Government to watch over our shoulders, saying
whether our financial decisions are OK? The point is that the Federal
Government should not have this power, but this bill will be giving it
unless we have this amendment.
I have risen to bring light and awareness to the additional, enormous
unchecked power that would be given to the bureau of consumer
protection in the name of protecting consumers. This power would be
given not in the name of protecting us from physical threat or harm but
in the name of making decisions for us.
I offer another choice to my colleagues and to the people. This
choice allows consumers to let the bureau into their personal lives if
they so choose. My amendment would not stop the bureau from existing.
My amendment would not prevent the bureau from assisting consumers with
their finances or debt. My amendment would simply require the bureau to
get written permission from consumers. It is that simple. I urge
colleagues to consider the amendment so that we are empowering
consumers, not perpetuating big government growth in the name of
protecting us from ourselves.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shelby be added as a cosponsor
to the amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, with the permission of the bill manager, I
ask unanimous consent to set aside any pending amendments and to call
up amendment No. 3986.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill is not yet pending.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I understand the bill has not yet been
reported, but I would like to make a few comments on my amendment. As
soon as the bill is reported, I will call up the amendment more
specifically.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 15
minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am advised the bill is ready to be
reported.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Morning business is closed.
____________________
RESTORING AMERICAN FINANCIAL STABILITY ACT OF 2010
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 3217, which the clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 3217) to promote the financial stability of the
United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail,'' to protect
the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect
consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes.
Pending:
Reid (for Dodd/Lincoln) amendment No. 3739, in the nature
of a substitute.
Brownback modified amendment No. 3789 (to amendment No.
3739), to provide for an exclusion from the authority of the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection for certain
automobile manufacturers.
[[Page 8303]]
Brownback (for Snowe/Pryor) amendment No. 3883 (to
amendment No. 3739), to ensure small business fairness and
regulatory transparency.
Specter modified amendment No. 3776 (to amendment No.
3739), to amend section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 to allow for a private civil action against a person
that provides substantial assistance in violation of such
act.
Dodd (for Leahy) amendment No. 3823 (to amendment No.
3739), to restore the application of the Federal antitrust
laws to the business of health insurance to protect
competition and consumers.
Whitehouse amendment No. 3746 (to amendment No. 3739), to
restore to the States the right to protect consumers from
usurious lenders.
Dodd (for Rockefeller) amendment No. 3758 (to amendment No.
3739), to preserve the Federal Trade Commission's rulemaking
authority.
Udall (CO) amendment No. 4016 (to amendment No. 3739), to
improve consumer notification of numerical credit scores used
in certain lending transactions.
Amendment No. 3986 to Amendment No. 3739
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside any
pending amendments and to call up amendment No. 3986.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn], for himself, and Mr.
Vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 3986 to amendment No.
3739.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To protect United States taxpayers from paying for the
bailouts of foreign governments)
On page 1565, after line 23, add the following:
TITLE XIII--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 1301. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO FINANCE
BAILOUTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
The Bretton Woods Agreements Act (22 U.S.C. 286 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 68. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO FINANCE
BAILOUTS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.
``(a) In General.--The President shall direct the United
States Executive Director of the International Monetary
Fund--
``(1) to evaluate any proposed loan to a country by the
Fund if the amount of the public debt of the country exceeds
the gross domestic product of the country;
``(2) to determine whether or not the loan will be repaid
and certify that determination to Congress.
``(b) Opposition to Loans Unlikely To Be Repaid.--If the
Executive Director determines under subsection (a)(2) that a
loan by the International Monetary Fund to a country will not
be repaid, the President shall direct the Executive Director
to use the voice and vote of the United States to vote in
opposition to the proposed loan.''.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I continue to have deep concerns about the
legislation we are debating. I mentioned some of those concerns last
week, including the bailout provisions that still effectively remain in
the bill and the so-called orderly liquidation process that could give
some firms special treatment outside of the Bankruptcy Code.
I repeat my appreciation to Senator Sessions from Alabama for
offering his amendment last week which would have corrected that.
Unfortunately, it was defeated last Thursday, as most of the amendments
have been.
At this time, I offer another amendment that would protect the
American taxpayer from bailing out foreign governments. We all know
that this scene, which we saw displayed across cable television and in
the newspapers, is being played out now in Greece where literally a
Greek tragedy is unfolding.
How did this happen? First, Greece's public debt was 115 percent of
its gross domestic product, according to the International Monetary
Fund. Putting that in context, according to the Congressional Budget
Office report of March 2010, the public debt of the United States is
currently 53 percent of our gross domestic product. However, the
Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeper of the
government, says, all else being equal--in other words, if nothing else
happens--the baseline estimate for that debt in ten years will be 67.5
percent, up from 53 percent last year. Under the President's proposed
budget, that number skyrockets to 90 percent of gross domestic product
by 2020. While some may say here in America we are in relatively good
shape because our debt is only 53 percent of our gross domestic
product, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that under the
President's own budget, that will soar from 53 percent of the gross
domestic product to 90 percent of GDP by the year 2020, which makes
that 115 percent number for Greece look not so much higher than what
the American number will be come 2020.
Deficits are high in Greece for the same reason they are too high in
the United States--too much government and too much reckless spending.
Similar to the U.S. Government, the Greek Government has been
financing its operations by borrowing money. But over the last few
weeks, the capital markets made clear investors--the people who buy
that debt--do not trust the Greeks to be able to pay it back, hence,
the need for these extraordinary bailouts by the International Monetary
Fund.
But, again, the comparison is unavoidable. What happens if the United
States does not change its current trajectory of going to 90 percent of
our gross domestic product when it comes to our debt by 2020, as
projected by the Congressional Budget Office? What do we do if we
continue to borrow and spend? What do we do if China, for example--
which is the primary country that buys that debt--either refuses to
continue to finance our deficit spending and our debt or demands higher
interest rates.
What is happening now in Greece with these kinds of demonstrations I
do not think it takes a great imagination to say could happen in
America if we are not more responsible in dealing with our out-of-
control spending, our out-of-control debt--unless we say no to the
President's proposed spending budget, which would grow that to 90
percent of our gross domestic product by 2020.
But back to my amendment. Why is it people are so upset about bailing
out Greece, using the International Monetary Fund to do so? Well, I am
referring to an article from the Associated Press entitled ``Europe
bristles at paying for Greek retirement.'' Let me read a couple
paragraphs:
In Greece, trombone players and pastry chefs get to retire
as early at 50 on grounds their work causes them late career
breathing problems. Hairdressers enjoy the same perk thanks
to the dyes and other chemicals they rub into people's
scalps.
Skipping down a couple paragraphs:
Like many [European Union] countries, the general
retirement age in Greece is 65, although the actual average
[retirement age] is about 61. However, the deeply fragmented
system also provides for early retirement--as early as 55 for
men and 50 for women--in many professions classified as
``arduous and unhealthy.''
So we see why people are reluctant, to say the least, to bail out
Greece because of these reckless pensions that facilitate these early
retirements under the thinnest of pretenses. But we know the European
Union and the International Monetary Fund recently approved a $145
billion bailout for the Greek Government. Mr. President, $40 billion of
that represents loan guarantees from the International Monetary Fund.
Since the United States has funded about 17 percent of the IMF's
budget, our share--that is, the American taxpayers' share--of that
bailout would be at least $7 billion. That is right, U.S. taxpayers are
on the hook to help bail out Greece to the tune of at least $7 billion.
We know a $1 trillion bailout fund is being discussed for other
European nations. While the details are being discussed, once again,
U.S. taxpayer funds could make their way through the International
Monetary Fund to bail out irresponsible foreign governments.
As CNBC reported on Tuesday:
U.S. taxpayers could be on the hook for $50 billion or more
as part of the European debt bailout, which is likely to be a
close cousin to the strategy used to rescue the American
financial system.
[[Page 8304]]
CNBC went on to say:
The entire bailout package has been nicknamed ``Le Tarp''
for its similarity to the Troubled Asset Relief Program that
bailed out US companies with taxpayer-backed loans.
They are calling this bailout fund Le Tarp for a reason. Once again,
billions of dollars will be in the hands of government bureaucrats, and
the U.S. taxpayer will be asked simply to trust those so-called experts
who have let us down before and who seem to be making much of this up
as they go along.
It is no surprise that 63 percent of respondents to a recent
Rasmussen poll have said they oppose using U.S. taxpayer funds to bail
out foreign governments. I am actually surprised it is only 63 percent.
American taxpayers should not be involved in bailing out foreign
governments. As George Will pointed out last week in the Washington
Post, Greece has a gross domestic product that is less than the Dallas-
Fort Worth metropolitan area's. Greece is simply not, under any stretch
of the imagination, too big to fail. If Greece defaults on its debt,
then the European banks that bought the debt need do write it off. If
the European governments want to bail out their banks or prop up their
currency, let them do it without help from the American taxpayer.
American taxpayers simply should not be involved in this process. Our
first priority should be to unwind all the bailouts we have, thanks to
this administration, not to create new ones overseas.
Moreover, there is a good chance this Greek bailout is not even going
to work; in other words, that we will not even be able to get our money
back. It will not be a loan; it will be throwing more good money after
bad.
The chief executive of the Deutsche Bank doubts the Greeks can even
repay this debt. We have all seen pictures of these protests that have
continued under the ``austerity measures'' that have now been imposed
that the government was forced to make in order to secure the deal.
As one blogger recently put it:
It was the Greeks who gave us the word for democracy. They
also gave us the words for demagoguery, tyranny, crisis and
chaos.
That is what this photograph looks like: chaos as a result of
uncontrolled spending and out-of-control debt.
What we are seeing is what Robert Samuelson calls the ``Death Spiral
of the [Modern] Welfare State.'' He said: ``The reckoning has arrived
in Greece, but it awaits most wealthy countries,'' including, I might
add, the United States of America--unless we change our ways.
The President of the European Council put it this way:
We can't finance our social model anymore--with 1 percent
structural growth we can't play a role in the world.
What my amendment--which will be among the four amendments voted on
when we gather again at 5:30--does is, it says the American people are
tired of bailouts, and Congress should protect the American taxpayer
from bailing out foreign governments, particularly when we cannot get
our money back afterwards.
My amendment would bring needed transparency and accountability to
what the International Monetary Fund is doing with American taxpayer
dollars, including the roughly $60 billion our country has already
provided to the IMF over the years.
Specifically, this amendment would require the administration to look
more closely at any proposed IMF loan to see if that country's debt
exceeds its GDP; and when it does, as Greece's does, to certify to
Congress that the loan will be repaid.
If the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF cannot certify to Congress
that the loan will be repaid, my amendment would require the President
of the United States to direct the Executive Director to vote against
the bailout by the International Monetary Fund.
The logic of this amendment could not be more clear: Any country that
owes more money than its entire economy produces is, by definition, a
very bad credit risk, and the United States should not be loaning money
to such a nation, unless we are absolutely confident our taxpayers are
not subsidizing failure and will ultimately get their money back.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We must act
quickly, so the amendment will apply to future bailouts of nations like
Greece that have spent way beyond their means.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 3746 to Amendment No. 3739
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words on the
amendment I have pending and that we will be voting on in the next 2
days that will restore the historic power of States to control interest
rates they charge to their citizens.
One of the things I hear most about when I am home in Rhode Island is
from folks who can't understand why their credit card interest rate
suddenly jumped to over 30 percent. For a long time, the tricks and the
traps in those long credit card contracts pitched people into these
penalty rates. I think a lot of people don't read all the fine print
and aren't sure exactly what it means. We have individual consumers up
against the craftiest lawyers the credit card industry can hire, and
the result is when they trigger one of these traps and they get caught
by one of these little tricks, they end up being kicked into a very
high penalty rate.
Recently, after the credit card reform bill passed a year ago, we saw
the credit card industry actually not even waiting for the tricks or
traps to be triggered. They just began to spontaneously raise people's
interest rates; again, very often over 30 percent. The Presiding
Officer and I are both of an age where we can remember a time when
interest rates of that level would have been a matter to refer to the
authorities, not a commonplace business practice of our biggest
industries. When we think of the pain and the suffering and the
economic stress families get put under when they fall into these
burdensome, exorbitant penalty rates--I think we should do something
about it. My amendment would allow us to do just that.
It doesn't take any new risks. It doesn't create dramatic new policy.
It does things that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been
supportive of over the years. It honors the independent authority of
States to make decisions to protect their citizens. It supports
consumers--the little guy--against the huge corporations, and it puts
our local banks on a level playing field with these big out-of-State
banks.
We got here because of an unusual loophole that the Supreme Court
opened 30 years ago. We did not have a debate on the Senate floor
saying: What should our policy be? Should we take away the rights of
States to protect their consumers, to protect their citizens from
exorbitant out-of-State interest rates? We never had that discussion.
This happened inadvertently.
It happened as a result of a Supreme Court decision back in 1978 that
said when a bank in one State and a consumer in another State have a
transaction, it will be the laws of the home State of the bank that
govern. It didn't look like a very big deal at the time. It didn't take
the crafty bank lawyers long to see that it opened a very tricky
loophole, and they could move to the States in this country that had
the worst consumer protection legislation, and from there--from those
outposts of the worst consumer protection--they could market into other
States. The fact that the other State they were marketing into had good
consumer protections and protected those State's citizen didn't matter.
It didn't help because of the Supreme Court decision.
I submit if, as a Senate, we were to have debated that proposition,
there would not have been many votes for the outcome. The notion of the
policy of the United States on protecting consumers from interest rates
should be
[[Page 8305]]
that the rules of the worst State in the country trump every other
State is a rule that nobody in their right mind would vote for. But
because of this inadvertent Supreme Court loophole and because of the
crafty work of these big national banks and their lawyers, we are now
in that exact situation--a situation that none of us would ever have
voted for and that we shouldn't tolerate now.
So I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to vote for
this amendment. I wish to thank Senator Cochran from the other side of
the aisle for cosponsoring it, and I wish to ask his colleagues in the
Republican caucus to join him in supporting it.
This bill we are looking at right now is very esoteric and technical.
It is preventive medicine. It engages in things such as trying to
rebuild the Glass-Steagall firewall, trying to promptly regulate
collateralized debt obligations, trying to put appropriate leverage
limitations on banks. That is all pretty arcane stuff.
The American people want this reform, and it should happen. But here
is a deliverable they can take right home. They will see a difference
as soon as their States respond. They can be protected from these
outrageous 30-percent interest rates as a result of this bill. It is
not a big Federal Government that is coming to do this; it is the State
governments, State by State. Indeed, if a State wants to have no
consumer protections and have its citizens vulnerable to these
predatory and exorbitant credit card deals, fine. They can do that.
There is nothing in my amendment that requires a State to do anything.
It just empowers them with the same power they had at the founding,
with the same power they had for 202 years, until 1978 came along and
this peculiar Supreme Court decision.
So I think it will be a good argument to go home with, and as voters
in this country look at what Congress has done leading up to the
November elections, to be able to say: You know what. Those 30-percent
rates we never saw when we were children and that our parents never had
to pay, the rates that you as a head of a family are now having to deal
with with these credit card companies from out of State that you can
barely reach on the phone, and if you do, you get pushed from phone
tree to phone tree, we have done something about that. We have helped
you. We have put you in a position where the States are sovereign again
over these big national corporations rather than vice versa.
Right now, we, the big credit card companies, are sovereign over our
States. That is not the way things should be in America. That is not
the way the Founding Fathers set it up. It is not right for consumers.
It violates the principle of the States being laboratories of
democracy, and it completely eviscerates consumer protection.
So I urge my colleagues to support it and to put themselves in a
position to be able to go home to their voters and say: We did
something tangible for you. We didn't create bigger government. We let
your existing State government make the decisions that for two
centuries they were capable of making to protect you from the worst
practices of the out-of-State credit card companies. The alternative is
to have to go back and explain why people are still paying 30 percent
when you have the chance to do something about it; why you chose the
big out-of-State corporations and exorbitant interest rates over your
own home State's protection of your own home State's citizens.
I think the position my colleagues would want to be in on that one is
with your home State, with the doctrine of federalism, with the
traditions of the United States of America, and with your consumers,
rather than on the other side with the big out-of-State banks that
charge these exorbitant rates.
So I hope I will have support, and I look forward to working with
anyone who has questions.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Amendment No. 4020 to Amendment No. 3739
(Purpose: To limit further bailouts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to
enhance the regulation and oversight of such enterprises, and for other
purposes)
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up the Crapo amendment No. 4020.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], for himself, Mr. Gregg,
Mr. Shelby, Mr. McCain, Mr. Vitter, and Mrs. Hutchison,
proposes an amendment numbered 4020 to amendment No. 3739.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, May 13, 2010.)
Mr. CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
This amendment includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of the
Federal budget as long as either of these two institutions is under
conservatorship or receivership. I wish to thank Senators Gregg,
Shelby, McCain, and Vitter, Hutchison, and Corker for cosponsoring this
amendment.
As I believe my colleagues will recall, several days ago we voted on
a broader amendment which would actually have provided some significant
coverage of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in this so-called financial
regulatory reform legislation we are addressing on the floor of the
Senate today.
That legislation would have provided a pathway for us to literally
stop the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie and move us toward a path of
resolving the continued taxpayer exposure to the excesses of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. But that amendment was defeated on the floor of the
Senate--although I supported that amendment because now, since the
amendment has been defeated, there is literally no piece of this
legislation before us that addresses the core problem that started the
entire collapse in our economy; namely, the securitization of the
mortgage industry and the actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which
ran up so many of these toxic assets and helped to spread them
throughout the globe.
As we debated then, the taxpayer is already on the hook for about
$130 billion-plus for the problems Fannie and Freddie caused. Experts
tell us, as we move forward, that liability to the taxpayer is likely
to reach $380 billion to $400 billion. I personally think those are
conservative estimates. When we get the full picture, I think the
taxpayers will have been put on the hook for way more than that.
This amendment simply says: Let's tell the American public what's
happening. Since we lost the fight last week to try to have the bill
cover Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and provide an exit strategy for the
taxpayers to continue to bail them out, let's at least be open and
clear about what we are doing with regard to Fannie and Freddie.
The purpose of this amendment is to show the American people the true
picture of how much our national debt has increased as a result of the
bailout of these two institutions--the bailout which I, again, point
out is ongoing, uninterrupted in any way by this legislation.
According to the CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf:
After the U.S. Government assumed control in 2008 of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac--two federally chartered institutions
that provide credit guarantees for almost half of the
outstanding residential mortgages in the U.S.--
This is his quote now, and because of what happened in the economy,
Fannie and Freddie, together with the FHA, account for 96.5 percent of
all of the residential mortgages in the U.S. Continuing with the quote:
the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the
institutions had effectively become government entities whose
operations should be included in the Federal budget.
What is the Director saying? He is saying that since the U.S.
Government
[[Page 8306]]
has now taken over control and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, and the taxpayer is on the hook for all of their debts and
excesses, we ought to put it on budget and show the American people
what is happening to our debt as a result of it, instead of using the
creative accounting that we see here in Washington all the time, where
we mount up spending and debt and figure out ways to keep it from
showing up in the national debt or in the calculations of our spending.
At the end of 2009, per the financial statements, those figures that
we are talking about, how much debt is not being reflected in our
national debt because we don't choose to count it? Those figures are
$774 billion for Fannie Mae and $781 billion for Freddie Mac, for a
total of $1.555 trillion, which is out there for which the taxpayer is
on the hook, and we have to figure out a way to pay it back. We as a
Congress will not tell the American people that in the calculations of
our national debt.
To put into perspective how large these entities are, their combined
total books of business are nearly $5.5 trillion. As I indicated, they
are currently run and operated by the U.S. Government.
Again, the amendment last week would have put us on a pathway to
solve this and take the government out of the business, which should be
a private sector business of mortgages. But at least this amendment
would put us on record as telling the American people what exposure we
are putting them to by not taking those actions.
By the way, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in
the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in
housing values that resulted, the government's cost to bail out Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac will eventually reach, as indicated before, about
$381 billion. I think that is too conservative.
On May 5, Freddie Mac reported losing another $8 billion in the first
quarter and requested $10.6 billion from taxpayers, saying in the same
breath they are going to need more in the future.
On May 10, Fannie Mae reported losing $11.5 billion, its 11th
consecutive quarterly loss, and itself asked for another $8.4 billion
more from the taxpayers. That is in addition to the $126.9 billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac already cost the taxpayers. Get this--there
used to be some limits on this--$400 billion or $200 billion for each
institution.
Last Christmas--literally on Christmas Eve--the Treasury announced
that it was going to lift that $400 billion loss cap on these two
companies, creating a potentially unlimited liability, and effectively
providing the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, the
American taxpayers, for their unlimited debt. Now the limit, instead of
$400 billion, which itself is unacceptable, is infinity. We will not
even record it for the American people to see.
According to a January 2010 CBO background paper titled ``CBO's
Budgetary Treatment of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,'' the Congressional
Budget Office ``believes that the Federal Government's current
financial and operational relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
warrants their inclusion in the budget.''
This isn't just my complaint. The CBO itself has said that now that
the status is that the U.S. Government has taken control of the
financing of and assumed the debt of the obligations and actions of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we ought to recognize they are government
entities, and we ought to include them in our budget. That is what we
are seeking in this amendment.
By contrast, the current administration has taken a different
approach by continuing to treat Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as outside
the Federal budget, recording and projecting outlays equal to the
amounts of any cash infusions made by Treasury into the entities. They
are creating the appearance that there is no debt here, no impact on
our budget. That is the kind of nontransparency this amendment is aimed
at stopping. We are seeking to create some kind of transparency that
will at least allow Congress and the public to understand the finances
we are now being engaged in and asking the American taxpayers to back.
The Office of Management and Budget, in contrast to the CBO, has said
in their Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2011:
Under the approach in the budget, all of the GSEs'
transactions with the public are non-budgetary because the
GSEs are not considered to be government agencies.
We have the President and the OMB at the White House saying that we
don't need to count this in the budget because they are not government
agencies. The CBO, however, is saying: Wait a minute, we own them, we
run them, we are backing all of their debt, and essentially they are
government entities. We can engage in debates about whether Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac are Government entities, but the bottom line question
is: Who is responsible for their debt? Who is paying for their debt?
Nobody denies the answer to that question. It is the U.S. taxpayer.
If the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for their debt--and after what I
call the ``Christmas Eve massacre'' of last Christmas--and there is no
limit to the amount of that liability, we at least ought to put it on
record.
CBO has included the GSEs in its budget baseline but does not include
their debt in the computations of debt because CBO took a narrow view
of the Federal debt. But as CBO's report says:
CBO's treatment of the entities' debt does not constitute a
statement about whether or not that debt should be considered
Federal debt.
Figure that out. CBO is saying: We are not going to include this in
the debt, even though we think they are government entities and we
ought to put them on budget. Their words were ``CBO's treatment of the
entities' debt''--meaning not counting it--``does not constitute a
statement about whether or not that debt should be considered Federal
debt.''
Maybe CBO is saying Congress needs to give us some direction. Whether
that is what they are saying, Congress does need to give some direction
here, and that is the purpose of the amendment.
In light of Treasury's Christmas Eve ``taxpayer massacre'' and the
government's decision to back all losses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
we should include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of the Federal
budget--at least as long as they are in receivership or conservatorship
and run and backed up by the American taxpayer.
The amendment would also do a few other things. It would reestablish
the $200 billion cap per entity and accelerate the 10-percent
reductions of the mortgage portfolios, effectively requiring the
companies to shrink those portfolios by holding a combined $100 billion
from their current levels.
This will also limit the losses that taxpayers will face as a result
of the blank check given by the administration last December 24.
The amendment will also require the Secretary of the Treasury and the
Director of the Federal Housing Financing Agency to testify before the
Banking Committee each time an additional $10 billion or more in
taxpayer funds is provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined. In
other words, the next time, under this amendment, we have a May like
this May, where Fannie and Freddie have asked for more than $10 billion
of additional taxpayer bailout, we at least ought to have the Secretary
of the Treasury and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency,
who manage this, come before the Banking Committee and testify as to
what is happening, why, and where we are headed.
This will provide at least an opportunity for congressional
oversight, which is currently totally lacking in the process. All that
happens now is that they issue a press release saying we need another
$10 billion and they get it--no limits, no caps, no accountability, no
counting of the debt, and no explanation to Congress. It seems to me a
little transparency and honesty with the American people about what our
finances are doing here is appropriate.
The amendment is also going to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to
[[Page 8307]]
post on the Treasury Web site, 1, the aggregate portfolio holdings of
each enterprise and, 2, a weekly summary of taxpayer funds provided for
and at risk for each enterprise.
Again, all we are asking is to have the kind of transparency that
will allow the American people to understand what the Federal
Government is up to with their money. It will also help explain why
some of us don't believe the rhetoric about the bill before us today.
There is a lot of talk about ending bailouts. There is a lot of talk
about ``too big to fail'' is never going to be allowed again in
America. There are some provisions in the bill that end some of the
bailouts and that go quite a bit of the way down the road toward making
it clear that a company cannot get too big to fail, and that we will
try to move them into a resolution process if they do fail.
It is not ironclad, however, and there is still the possibility that
we will see bailouts in the future--something in other amendments we
have tried to tighten.
But let's not mistake the fact that the biggest bailouts of all are
not even addressed in this legislation and are allowed to not only
continue unabated but to continue without even telling the American
public what the facts are. When I say the biggest bailouts of all, the
last numbers I saw, if you take the auto bailout and the financial
bailouts everybody heard about, and total them all up, they won't even
equal the amount of money being used to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. Yet, Fannie and Freddie continue--because the government now owns
them--to be untouched by this legislation.
It is time for true transparency as we debate these issues of
bailouts and too big to fail. It is time for us to address the very
core of the problem that caused so much of the economic disruption we
are now dealing with--the financial mortgage industry and the
securitization of those toxic mortgages.
Yet, again, what happens? We are simply asked, as American taxpayers,
to pony up with a check for $10 billion here and $8 billion there, and
we will continue to grow, unrestricted, uncontrolled, unnoticed, and
unidentified, because we won't even put it on record and count it in
our own budgeting.
It is time for us to include the obligations and the management of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in our Federal budget. I encourage all of my
colleagues to support this amendment when we get an opportunity to vote
on it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 3758, as Modified
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I call up Senator Hutchison's and my
amendment No. 3758 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is pending. Does the
Senator wish it to be the pending question?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent to modify this amendment
with the modification at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment (No. 3758 as modified), is as follows:
On page 1191, line 5, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
On page 1191, line 10, strike ``6809);'' and insert ``6809)
except for section 505 as it applies to section 501(b);'';
On page 1191, line 20, strike ``and''.
On page 1191, line 22, strike ``seq.).'' and insert
``seq.); and''.
On page 1191, between lines 22 and 23, insert the
following:
(Q) section 626 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009
(Public Law 111-8).
On page 1192, line 5 after ``H.'' insert ``The term does
not include the Federal Trade Commission Act.''
On page 1213, line 24 after ``database'' insert ``or
utilizing an existing database''.
On page 1214, line 3, after ``with'' insert ``the Federal
Trade Commission or''.
On page 1214, line 4, strike ``other Federal regulators,''
and insert ``such agencies,''.
On page 1215, line 11, after ``regulators,'' insert ``the
Federal Trade Commission,''.
On page 1215, line 14, strike ``regulators'' and insert
``regulators, the Federal Trade Commission,'' .
On page 1221, line 8, after ``Trading Commission,'' insert
``the Federal Trade Commission,''.
On page 1237, line 6, strike ``law,'' and insert ``law and
except as provided in section 1061(b)(5),''.
On page 1250, line 6, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(a)(1)''.
On page 1250, line 20, strike ``(a),'' and insert
``(a)(1),''.
On page 1251, line 19, strike ``(a)'' and insert
``(a)(1)''.
On page 1251, line 24, strike ``(a)'' and insert
``(a)(1)''.
On page 1252, line 8, strike ``(a),'' and insert
``(a)(1),''.
On page 1252, line 22, strike ``(a)'' and insert
``(a)(1)''.
On page 1253, line 4, strike ``(a).'' and insert
``(a)(1).''.
On page 1253, line 13, strike ``(a)'' and insert
``(a)(1)''.
On page 1253, line 15, strike ``(a)'' and insert
``(a)(1)''.
On page 1253, line 18, strike ``(a),'' and insert
``(a)(1),''.
On page 1253, line 24, strike ``(a),'' and insert
``(a)(1),''.
On page 1254, line 13, strike ``Exclusive''.
On page 1254, strike lines 14 through 20 and insert the
following:
(1) The bureau to have enforcement authority.--Except as
provided in paragraph (3) and section 1061(b)(5), with
respect to any person described in subsection (a)(1), to the
extent that Federal law authorizes the Bureau and another
Federal agency to enforce Federal consumer financial law, the
Bureau shall have exclusive authority to enforce that Federal
consumer financial law.
On page 1255, strike lines 5 through 18, and insert the
following:
(A) In general.--The Bureau and the Federal Trade
Commission shall negotiate an agreement for coordinating with
respect to enforcement actions by each agency regarding the
offering or provision of consumer financial products or
services by any covered person that is described in
subsection (a)(1), or service providers thereto. The
agreement shall include procedures for notice to the other
agency, where feasible, prior to initiating a civil action to
enforce any Federal law regarding the offering or provision
of consumer financial products or services.
On page 1256, line 25, strike ``law,'' and insert ``law and
except as provided in section 1061(b)(5),''.
On page 1257, line 3, strike ``(a)'' and insert ``(a)(1)''.
On page 1257, line 9, strike ``(a),'' and insert
``(a)(1),''.
On page 1257, line 12, strike ``(a)'' and insert
``(a)(1)''.
On page 1298, line 14, strike ``ensure that the rules--''
and insert ``ensure, to the extent appropriate, that the
rules--''.
On page 1299, line 9, strike ``all''.
On page 1301, line 18, strike ``to establish'' and insert
``regarding''.
On page 1375, beginning with line 8, strike through line 5
on page 1376 and insert the following:
(A) Transfer of functions.--The authority of the Federal
Trade Commission under an enumerated consumer law to
prescribe rules, issue guidelines, or conduct a study or
issue a report mandated under such law shall be transferred
to the Bureau on the designated transfer date. Nothing in
this title shall be construed to require a mandatory transfer
of any employee of the Federal Trade Commission.
(B) Bureau authority.--
(i) In general.--The Bureau shall have all powers and
duties under the enumerated consumer laws to prescribe rules,
issue guidelines, or to conduct studies or issue reports
mandated by such laws, that were vested in the Federal Trade
Commission on the day before the designated transfer date.
(ii) Federal trade commission act.--Subject to subtitle B,
the Bureau may enforce a rule prescribed under the Federal
Trade Commission Act by the Federal Trade Commission with
respect to an unfair or deceptive act or practice to the
extent that such rule applies to a covered person or service
provider with respect to the offering or provision of a
consumer financial product or service as if it were a rule
prescribed under section 1031 of this title.
(C) Authority of the federal trade commission.--
(i) In general.--No provision of this title shall be
construed as modifying, limiting, or otherwise affecting the
authority of the Federal Trade Commission under the Federal
Trade Commission Act or any other law, other than the
authority under an enumerated consumer law to prescribe
rules, issue official guidelines, or conduct a study or issue
a report mandated under such law.
(ii) Commission authority relating to rules prescribed by
the bureau.--Subject to subtitle B, the Federal Trade
Commission shall have authority to enforce under the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41
[[Page 8308]]
et seq.) a rule prescribed by the Bureau under this title
with respect to a covered person subject to the jurisdiction
of the Federal Trade Commission under that Act, and a
violation of such a rule by such a person shall be treated as
a violation of a rule issued under section 18 of that Act (15
U.S.C. 57a) with respect to unfair or deceptive acts or
practices.
(D) Coordination.--To avoid duplication of or conflict
between rules prescribed by the Bureau under section 1031 of
this title and the Federal Trade Commission under section
18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act that apply to
a covered person or service provider with respect to the
offering or provision of consumer financial products or
services, the agencies shall negotiate an agreement with
respect to rulemaking by each agency, including consultation
with the other agency prior to proposing a rule and during
the comment period.
(E) Deference.--No provision of this title shall be
construed as altering, limiting, expanding, or otherwise
affecting the deference that a court affords to the--
(i) Federal Trade Commission in making determinations
regarding the meaning or interpretation of any provision of
the Federal Trade Commission Act, or of any other Federal law
for which the Commission has authority to prescribe rules; or
(ii) Bureau in making determinations regarding the meaning
or interpretation of any provision of a Federal consumer
financial law (other than any law described in clause (i)).
On page 1382, beginning with line 5, strike through line 2
on page 1383 and insert the following:
(c) Federal Trade Commission.--Section 1061(b)(5) does not
affect the validity of any right, duty, or obligation of the
United States, the Federal Trade Commission, or any other
person, that--
(1) arises under any provision of law relating to any
consumer financial protection function of the Federal Trade
Commission transferred to the Bureau by this title; and
(2) existed on the day before the designated transfer date.
On page 1396, line 24, strike ``FTC''.
On page 1397, line 1, strike ``the Federal Trade
Commission,''.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, at its very core, this amendment is
about protecting consumers. It is about making sure the Federal Trade
Commission has the authority to act in coordination with the new
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is created in the
underlying bill.
This amendment would equip the FTC to cover dangerous gaps in
consumer protection and to go after dishonest, fly-by-night operators
targeting our society's weakest members. In the Commerce Committee, we
discovered those folks are frequent and everywhere.
For nearly 100 years, the FTC has been protecting consumers in the
gray areas where other regulatory bodies have failed to act. This
amendment will make sure the situation of the FTC and its ability to
act does not change. Since 1914, the Federal Trade Commission has
served the American public as our preeminent consumer watchdog. The
Commission's core consumer protection mission is to enforce and
regulate against ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or
affecting interstate commerce.'' This broad prohibition is at the heart
of the FTC's underlying authority under its authorizing statute, the
Federal Trade Commission Act.
This bipartisan amendment is very simple. It is a savings clause.
That is really all it is. It fully preserves the FTC's enforcement and
regulatory authority under the FTC Act as it is today. The underlying
bill creates a new consumer protection bureau within the Federal
Reserve, and I fully support that effort. But creating that new bureau
should not come at the expense of the FTC's mission, which is consumer
protection, which is not, incidentally, a zero sum game.
I emphasize that this amendment is hardly a novel concept. Throughout
the FTC's long, distinguished history, Congress has created new
regulatory agencies that have overlapped with the FTC's core authority
and jurisdiction. The list runs from the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Food and Drug Administration to the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But in
order to maximize consumer protection, Congress has always preserved
the FTC's authority under the FTC Act, and this latest effort should be
no different. Yet the underlying bill currently strips the FTC of its
authority and places it within the new bureau, undermining its consumer
protection mission and creating, in this Senator's judgment, dangerous
holes in our regulatory safety net. That is because the definition and
boundaries of the term ``financial products and services''--the ruling
definition--are entirely vast and entirely vague. Anyone can avoid
enforcement simply by claiming they are beyond the FTC's or the new
bureau's jurisdiction. Fraudsters and scam artists could and most
certainly would tie the courts up in knots. Concurrent authority would
solve this problem.
What is more, there is too much financial fraud out there to take a
valuable cop off the beat. The FTC has particular expertise in cracking
down on bad actors who fleece ordinary Americans of their hard-earned
money.
I think it is clear that these small-time crooks would not be at the
top of the new bureau's priority list. They will have many things to
do. It is just common sense to preserve the FTC's existing authority
against these people.
Simply put, the new consumer protection bureau cannot do everything.
Neither can the FTC. There will be plenty of work to go around for both
agencies.
I wish to be absolutely clear about something. This amendment would
not subject businesses to dual regulations. As I said earlier, the FTC
has always coexisted with newly created agencies, and they have avoided
tripping over one another with conflicting regulations or enforcement
actions. To make absolutely certain this does not happen, the
amendment, as modified, directs the FTC and the new bureau to enter
into a memorandum of understanding and coordinate their regulatory
efforts. That is sensible. The bottom line is that businesses will not
be subject to multiple layers of regulation or rules.
I close by thanking particularly Senator Hutchison, Senator Dorgan,
and Senator Pryor for their steadfast support and effort, and, of
course, Chairman Dodd, who has worked long and hard, it seems to me,
for months on end, never moving from that seat. He has been crucial in
working with me on this issue and with Senator Hutchison.
So many of the enormous economic problems we face today are a direct
result of weak consumer protections in the financial sector. It is the
hard-working families in places such as West Virginia and many other
places all across the country who are hurt the most. They are
struggling just to scrape by, to pay their bills, and to put food on
the table. It is so hard to know, frankly, whom to trust. They need to
know somebody is by their side looking out for them. The Restoring
American Financial Stability Act of 2010 will be that safeguard. It is
a profound achievement that will make a real and lasting difference in
the lives of hard-working Americans for generations to come. Our
amendment is a small but essential part of that work to make sure
consumers are protected.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I will not go into the specifics of
the Rockefeller-Hutchison amendment because the distinguished chairman
of the Commerce Committee said it very well. Let me make a couple of
other points to show what I think is the important reason for this
amendment to be adopted.
Over the past 5 years the Federal Trade Commission has filed over 100
actions against providers of financial services, and in the past 10
years the Commission has obtained nearly $\1/2\ billion in redress for
consumers of financial services. In 2009 alone, the FTC and the States,
working in close coordination, brought more than 200 cases against
firms that pedaled phony mortgage modification and foreclosure rescue
scams. Despite these successes, the substitute that is before us would
transfer all consumer protection functions of the FTC to the newly
created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The FTC, in a bipartisan letter signed by all five Commissioners, has
expressed concern that the current
[[Page 8309]]
Senate language could inadvertently restrict the ability of the FTC to
work with this new financial protection bureau to stop unfair and
deceptive practices that prey on consumers of financial products and
services. The FTC has warned that the current bill, which grants the
new agency exclusive rulemaking and enforcement authority in several
areas, could even inhibit the FTC's authority in consumer protection
with respect to consumer protection laws of nonfinancial products and
services.
The bottom line is, I do not think it was the intention of the bill
to take away from the FTC the authority and the record they have. It is
important that they have a record in this area. They have experience.
They have experienced staff. And we do not need to reinvent the wheel.
We do not need another whole agency to do the same things the FTC
already does.
It also is confusing to the regulator. It is confusing when they have
two agencies. They may have conflicting rules. Sometimes, as a
businessperson, I have been in a position where two agencies have
rulings that if you do what one ruling says, the other agency's ruling
would be violated. That is unfair to our small businesses. It is unfair
to the regulated entities not to have one regulatory authority that
does not in any way have a double burden or make a double burden on the
regulated. We need to keep commerce going and we also need to protect
consumers and our amendment will ensure that happens. So I am very
pleased to be a cosponsor.
I will say the leadership for this amendment certainly resided with
the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the distinguished Presiding
Officer in the chair now, and also I appreciate that Chairman Dodd and
Ranking Member Shelby worked on this amendment to make sure it was
written in the correct way and that the FTC will keep its basic
authority it has now. It will not get new authority, and it will not
have authority taken away. It will just be that their staff and their
experience will be utilized--and certainly in a more fair way--and
particularly in nonfinancial institutions consumers will have the
protection of the FTC, where they are the relevant agency, rather than
transferring to a new agency that is going to be set up and that
doesn't even have rules yet, much less staff.
So I think it is a good amendment, and I appreciate the leadership of
the distinguished chairman, Senator Rockefeller.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rockefeller). The clerk will call the
roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withhold the
quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is withheld.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a minute or so to thank both
the Presiding Officer and the author of this amendment, along with his
coauthor and my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Texas.
This is a good amendment, as my colleague from West Virginia has
pointed out. The role of the Federal Trade Commission has been
critically important and goes back a long time. I often cite to people
that one of my favorite pieces of statuary is outside the Federal Trade
Commission. It is an explanation of what the free enterprise system is
and how it is supposed to work. It is a rather dated piece of
sculpture, goes back I think to the Depression era, and it shows that
very powerful horse straining at the bit, trying to charge forward, and
a rather muscular farmer holding the horse back. You are not quite
sure, looking at the piece of statuary, whether the horse is going to
win or the farmer is going to win, which is about as good a visual
expression as we have of our free enterprise system.
We want a robust free enterprise system that is charging forward,
creating new ideas and innovations in order to allow jobs to be created
and wealth to be created. At the same time, we realize we have to have
that regulator in place to make sure it doesn't run wild, in the sense
that everyone else could be adversely affected by it. So I have always
thought that particular piece of statuary captured the essence of what
our free enterprise system is that sits outside the FTC.
I think this amendment strengthens the bill and is a very worthwhile
addition to it. So I thank both my colleagues for their indulgence and
their patience as we took a little time to get to this.
Either we will have a recorded vote or a voice vote, as soon as the
leadership decides how they want to handle that in the next hour or so.
Why don't we do this. If there is no objection, we will go to it, and
I will call the question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The amendment (No. 3758), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3746, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3739
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, may I ask for regular order with
respect to my pending amendment, No. 3746.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I offer a modification.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 3746), as modified, is as follows:
On page 1320, strike line 23 and all that follows through
the end of the undesignated matter on page 1321 between lines
17 and 18 and insert the following:
``(g) Transparency of OCC Preemption Determinations.--The
Comptroller of the Currency shall publish and update not less
frequently than quarterly, a list of preemption
determinations by the Comptroller of the Currency then in
effect that identifies the activities and practices covered
by each determination and the requirements and constraints
determined to be preempted.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
one of title LXII of the Revised Statutes of the United
States is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 5136B the following new item:
``Sec. 5136C. State law preemption standards for national banks and
subsidiaries clarified.''.
(c) Usurious Lenders.--Section 5197 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States (12 U.S.C. 85) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Any association'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--Any association''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Limits on Annual Percentages Rates.--Effective 12
months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the
interest applicable to any consumer credit transaction, as
that term is defined in section 103 of the Truth in Lending
Act (other than a transaction that is secured by real
property), including any fees, points, or time-price
differential associated with such a transaction, may not
exceed the maximum permitted by any law of the State in which
the consumer resides. Nothing in this section may be
construed to preempt an otherwise applicable provision of
State law governing the interest in connection with a
consumer credit transaction that is secured by real
property.''.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3884 to Amendment No. 3739
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the
Cantwell-McCain amendment, No. 3884.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
If not, the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Ms. Cantwell,
for herself and Mr. McCain, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Feingold, and Mr. Sanders, proposes amendment No. 3884 to
amendment No. 3739.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page 8310]]
(Purpose: To impose appropriate limitations on affiliations with
certain member banks)
At the end of subtitle C of title I, add the following:
SEC. 171. LIMITATIONS ON BANK AFFILIATIONS.
(a) Limitation on Affiliation.--The Banking Act of 1933 (12
U.S.C. 221a et seq.) is amended by inserting before section
21 the following:
``Sec. 20. Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, no
member bank may be affiliated, in any manner described in
section 2(b), with any corporation, association, business
trust, or other similar organization that is engaged
principally in the issue, flotation, underwriting, public
sale, or distribution at wholesale or retail or through
syndicate participation stocks, bonds, debenture, notes, or
other securities, except that nothing in this section shall
apply to any such organization which shall have been placed
in formal liquidation and which shall transact no business,
except such as may be incidental to the liquidation of its
affairs.''.
(b) Limitation on Compensation.--The Banking Act of 1933
(12 U.S.C. 221 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
31 the following:
``Sec. 32. Beginning 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010, no
officer, director, or employee of any corporation or
unincorporated association, no partner or employee of any
partnership, and no individual, primarily engaged in the
issue, flotation, underwriting, public sale, or distribution,
at wholesale or retail, or through syndicate participation,
of stocks, bonds, or other similar securities, shall serve
simultaneously as an officer, director, or employee of any
member bank, except in limited classes of cases in which the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System may allow
such service by general regulations when, in the judgment of
the Board of Governors, it would not unduly influence the
investment policies of such member bank or the advice given
to customers by the member bank regarding investments.''.
(c) Prohibiting Depository Institutions From Engaging in
Insurance-related Activities.--
(1) In general.--Beginning 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, in no case may a depository institution
engage in the business of insurance or any insurance-related
activity.
(2) Definition.--As used in this section, the term
``business of insurance'' means the writing of insurance or
the reinsuring of risks by an insurer, including all acts
necessary to such writing or reinsuring and the activities
relating to the writing of insurance or the reinsuring of
risks conducted by persons who act as, or are, officers,
directors, agents, or employees of insurers or who are other
persons authorized to act on behalf of such persons.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burris). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at
5:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the
following amendments in the order listed; that after the first vote
there be 2 minutes of debate prior to the succeeding votes, with the
succeeding votes limited to 10 minutes in duration: the Crapo
amendment, No. 4020; the Cornyn amendment, No. 3986; the Udall of
Colorado amendment, No. 4016; provided further that no amendment be in
order to any of the amendments covered in this agreement prior to a
vote in relation thereto.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 4020
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand I have 2 minutes; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a formal order.
Mr. DODD. Let me be brief.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I have a tremendously high regard for my
colleague from Idaho. We serve on the Banking Committee together. He is
more than just a member; he is an excellent member of the committee and
brings great knowledge in the area of financial services. It is always
with reluctance that one disagrees with someone they admire. I thank
him for his work. For the last 38 or 39 months I have been chairman he
has been a very valuable asset to our committee and a solid thinker.
We have had a couple amendments already--the Ensign amendment and the
McCain amendments--on the GSEs. We have had three amendments because I
offered a side-by-side amendment on the government-sponsored
enterprises, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Clearly, all of us,
without exception, understand we must have reform of the GSEs. We need
an alternative to the housing financing system. The present one is not
working. We also understand in the absence of it, we would be in deep
trouble in terms of housing issues today.
The Senate has spoken on the importance of addressing the issue. My
colleague from New Hampshire said it well when we were debating whether
to include this. As he pointed out, this was so complex an issue, no
one really had an alternative idea as to how to come up with a housing
financing system, and to include one in this bill would have been
difficult. We have debated that. But aside from the substantive issue,
the pending amendment deals with a matter within the Budget Committee's
jurisdiction.
Therefore, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment
violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
For those reasons, the point of order should lie against this, aside
from the substantive debate we have already had and the full awareness
that we must address this issue in the coming Congress if we are going
to be successful in dealing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For those
reasons, I raise the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section 4(g)(3)of the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, I move to waive all applicable sections of
those acts and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of my
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
I also ask unanimous consent that I have an equivalent amount of time
to respond on the amendment before we vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I oppose the Crapo amendment because of the
limitations that it would impose on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
These institutions have been very helpful to homeowners in West
Virginia who are seeking home loan modifications. I do not believe this
is the right time to be limiting the assistance that Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac can offer to struggling homeowners in paying for their
mortgages and keeping their homes.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, as the Senator from Connecticut indicated--
and I appreciate his kind remarks--we have had several votes on the GSE
issue. Remarkably, this Senate continues to refuse to deal with Fannie
and Freddie, the core issue of the problem on the bill we are debating.
Fannie and Freddie are nowhere to be seen in the legislation.
Recognizing that the Senate has refused in its votes to allow us to try
to focus on Fannie and Freddie, which are the biggest bailouts of all--
in fact, the bailouts of Fannie and Freddie are more in volume and cost
to the taxpayers than all other bailouts combined--this amendment
simply says: Let's be honest with the American taxpayer and at least
put the debt that Fannie and Freddie are now becoming responsible for
on our calculations of the national debt.
CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said:
[[Page 8311]]
After the U.S. government assumed control in 2008 of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac--two federally chartered institutions
that provide credit guarantees for almost half of the
outstanding residential mortgages in the U.S.--the
Congressional Budget Office concluded that the institutions
had effectively become government entities whose operations
should be included in the federal budget.
This amendment simply says: Let's put the calculations of debt for
which taxpayers are now on the hook, which now totals over $130
billion, which we are told is going to rise to $381 billion, and the
debt, which is over $1.5 trillion, of these two institutions that is
now on their books, let's put it in our calculation of the national
debt.
We are not asking to solve the problem in the bill with this
amendment. We fought that last week. This simply says let's put it on
the national debt.
I urge colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The yeas and nays have
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Delaware (Mr.
Kaufman), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln), the Senator from
New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Specter) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]
YEAS--47
Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Brown (MA)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kohl
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
NAYS--46
Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown (OH)
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Inouye
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Begich
Harkin
Kaufman
Lincoln
Murkowski
Shaheen
Specter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are
46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 3986
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, the next vote will occur
on the Cornyn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to the vote in relation to
amendment No. 3986 offered by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say, if I may--I am looking to the
leader here, if I can find him--I believe this will be the last
recorded vote this evening. There will be potentially a couple of voice
votes after this on matters involving, one, Senator Bond's amendment
that I am cosponsoring with him, along with Senator Warner and Senator
Corker--this will be the last recorded vote, but there will be a voice
vote on the angel investor amendment Senator Bond is interested in, and
there will be a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Udall of
Colorado dealing with credit scores that I believe we all can support
as well. Then we will be laying down a Lugar-Cardin or Cardin-Lugar
amendment for discussion this evening, with a possible vote in the
morning. Then we will be working this evening, Senator Shelby and I, to
try to lay out some amendments tomorrow to give people a clear picture
as to what the roadmap will be for tomorrow as well.
So with that, I turn to Senator Cornyn.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will make two points. No. 1: This
amendment will help protect American taxpayers from bailouts of foreign
governments. Greece is going to get $40 billion in loans from the IMF,
out of which $7 billion is attributable to the contributions of the
American taxpayer. They shouldn't have to do that unless we have an
assurance we will be paid back.
The second point is that Greece's current public debt relative to its
gross domestic product is 115 percent--meaning it owes more money than
its entire economy produces.
Under the President's budget, in 2020, looking at the same metric for
the U.S. Government--our debt will be 90 percent of our gross domestic
product. If we are not careful, America will turn into Greece and need
a bailout, except there won't be anybody there to bail us out,
including the American taxpayer.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I intend to support the Cornyn amendment,
and I ask my colleagues to do so as well. Our colleague from
Massachusetts, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator
Kerry, has raised some very legitimate issues about the amendment that
may need to be worked on as we move forward in our conference. But I
believe the thrust of the amendment is a correct one. We are concerned
about some very poor countries that may be in a different position,
including some additional thought that may need to be put into that,
and I respect the concerns raised by the Senator from Massachusetts.
I believe this is a good amendment deserving of our support;
therefore, I ask for the yeas and nays and ask my colleagues to support
the Cornyn amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the
Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs.
Lincoln), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the
Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 152 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown (MA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
[[Page 8312]]
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
LeMieux
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Begich
Harkin
Lincoln
Murkowski
Shaheen
Specter
The amendment (No. 3986) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. 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.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there are two amendments I am aware of. The
next order of business is the amendment by the Senator from Colorado,
Mr. Udall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in relation to
amendment No. 4016, offered by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Udall.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, we have had a lot of spirited
debate on the floor about the Wall Street Accountability Act, and there
have been some differences. One area we all agree on is that we ought
to empower consumers with this important piece of legislation.
The amendment I am offering with Senator Lugar does just that. It
provides that if you are turned down for credit because you have
applied for a loan or you have a higher loan rate, you will have access
to your credit score, your FICO score.
I believe this will empower consumers, increase financial literacy in
our country, and it is a win-win across the board. I want to thank the
group of Senators--some 20-plus--who supported this amendment. I
particularly thank the chairman, Senator Dodd, for his yeoman's work. I
urge an ``aye'' vote on this important amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Udall. He has done a great
job on this with Senator Lugar. They made an alternative suggestion
that would allow the release of these credit scores on a transactional
basis for the purchase of a automobile or a home, so you will get to
know what the credit score is, and that will be a great value.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4016) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. 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.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I believe the Bond-Warner-Corker amendment
is next.
Cloture Motions
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have two cloture motions at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motions having been presented
under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motions.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Dodd substitute
amendment No. 3739 to S. 3217, the Restoring American
Financial Stability Act of 2010.
Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Tim Johnson, Jack Reed,
Jon Tester, Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Daniel K.
Inouye, Kent Conrad, John F. Kerry, Roland W. Burris,
Mark R. Warner, Daniel K. Akaka, Sheldon Whitehouse,
John D. Rockefeller IV, Michael F. Bennet.
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 3217, the
Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.
Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, Tim Johnson, Jack Reed,
Jon Tester, Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Daniel K.
Inouye, Kent Conrad, John F. Kerry, Roland W. Burris,
Mark R. Warner, Daniel K. Akaka, John D. Rockefeller
IV, Sheldon Whitehouse, Michael F. Bennet.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have conferred with the Republican leader.
We are going to process as many amendments tonight as we can, and all
day tomorrow. Hopefully, we will be able to work on these Wednesday,
also. I hope everybody considers this bill as not having been
completed. We will move forward with whatever amendments are
appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Amendment No. 4056 to Amendment No. 3739
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
offered by Senators Bond, Warner, Corker, and myself be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement
be modified to include the Wyden-Grassley amendment No. 4019 to finally
end secret holds and add that amendment to the list of amendments
included in the agreement.
I point out that last Thursday, the Wyden-Grassley amendment was
pending to the financial reform bill, and it was ready for a vote by
the Senate. Then at the last minute, out of nowhere, this bipartisan
effort was blindsided without any notice whatever by a second-degree
amendment that effectively prevented a vote to open government and end
secret holds.
In light of what happened, I think it is only fair that this
bipartisan amendment be given the opportunity for a vote as part of
this consent agreement.
I also wish to make it clear that, in my view, anyone who objects to
adding the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley amendment to this agreement is
objecting to ending secret holds. They are objecting to even have a
vote in the Senate on ending secret holds, therefore, allowing the
Senate to continue to operate in secret and against ending this
indefensible denial of the public's right to know.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified to
add the Wyden-Grassley amendment to end secret holds, and it is No.
4019.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. RISCH. Reserving the right to object, I do not have any problem
with the substance, but I know Senator DeMint has serious issues with
it. We would like to have an opportunity to talk with him.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
Mr. RISCH. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Is there objection to the original request of the Senator from
Connecticut?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Bond, for
himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Warner, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Corker,
proposes an amendment numbered 4056 to amendment No. 3739.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To improve section 412 and section 926)
On page 387, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 388, line 3, and insert the following:
SEC. 412. ADJUSTING THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR STANDARD.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall adjust any net worth
standard for an accredited investor, as set forth in the
rules of the Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, so
that the individual net worth of any natural person, or joint
net worth with the spouse of that person, at the time of
purchase, is more than $1,000,000 (as such amount is adjusted
periodically by rule of the Commission), excluding the value
of the
[[Page 8313]]
primary residence of such natural person, except that during
the 4-year period that begins on the date of enactment of
this Act, any net worth standard shall be $1,000,000,
excluding the value of the primary residence of such natural
person.
(b) Review and Adjustment.--
(1) Initial review and adjustment.--
(A) Initial review.--The Commission may undertake a review
of the definition of the term ``accredited investor'', as
such term applies to natural persons, to determine whether
the requirements of the definition, excluding the requirement
relating to the net worth standard described in subsection
(a), should be adjusted or modified for the protection of
investors, in the public interest, and in light of the
economy.
(B) Adjustment or modification.--Upon completion of a
review under subparagraph (A), the Commission may, by notice
and comment rulemaking, make such adjustments to the
definition of the term ``accredited investor'', excluding
adjusting or modifying the requirement relating to the net
worth standard described in subsection (a), as such term
applies to natural persons, as the Commission may deem
appropriate for the protection of investors, in the public
interest, and in light of the economy.
(2) Subsequent reviews and adjustment.--
(A) Subsequent reviews.--Not earlier than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than
once every 4 years thereafter, the Commission shall undertake
a review of the definition, in its entirety, of the term
``accredited investor'', as defined in section 230.215 of
title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
thereto, as such term applies to natural persons, to
determine whether the requirements of the definition should
be adjusted or modified for the protection of investors, in
the public interest, and in light of the economy.
(B) Adjustment or modification.--Upon completion of a
review under subparagraph (A), the Commission may, by notice
and comment rulemaking, make such adjustments to the
definition of the term ``accredited investor'', as defined in
section 230.215 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor thereto, as such term applies to natural
persons, as the Commission may deem appropriate for the
protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light
of the economy.
On page 388, line 14, strike ``1 year'' and insert ``3
years''.
On page 998, strike line 12 and all that follows through
page 1001, line 25, and insert the following:
SEC. 926. DISQUALIFYING FELONS AND OTHER ``BAD ACTORS'' FROM
REGULATION D OFFERINGS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall issue rules for the
disqualification of offerings and sales of securities made
under section 230.506 of title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, that--
(1) are substantially similar to the provisions of section
230.262 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor thereto; and
(2) disqualify any offering or sale of securities by a
person that--
(A) is subject to a final order of a State securities
commission (or an agency or officer of a State performing
like functions), a State authority that supervises or
examines banks, savings associations, or credit unions, a
State insurance commission (or an agency or officer of a
State performing like functions), an appropriate Federal
banking agency, or the National Credit Union Administration,
that--
(i) bars the person from--
(I) association with an entity regulated by such
commission, authority, agency, or officer;
(II) engaging in the business of securities, insurance, or
banking; or
(III) engaging in savings association or credit union
activities; or
(ii) constitutes a final order based on a violation of any
law or regulation that prohibits fraudulent, manipulative, or
deceptive conduct within the 10-year period ending on the
date of the filing of the offer or sale; or
(B) has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor in
connection with the purchase or sale of any security or
involving the making of any false filing with the Commission.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to discuss a
bipartisan amendment critical to small business and job creation,
amendment No. 4056.
Thank you to my friend and colleague Senator Dodd for his leadership
on this amendment. I am proud to cosponsor this amendment with Senators
Dodd, Mark Warner, Scott Brown, Cantwell, Begich, and Murray.
Senators on both sides of the aisle agree that Wall Street needs to
be reformed to protect Main Street from a future crisis.
Senators on both sides of the aisle can also agree that small
business job creation is critical to our economic recovery and
communities in my State of Missouri and across the Nation.
That is what this bipartisan amendment is all about--protecting the
small business startups that are so vital to job creation and economic
development.
Specifically, our amendment removes onerous regulations and
restrictions in the financial reform bill that would have
unintentionally stifled job creation.
The provision would have unintentionally threatened small business
startups by delaying and limiting the availability of essential seed
capital from qualified investors.
Our country's entrepreneurs need immediate access to capital as they
work to move an idea from concept to production--especially when banks
or traditional lenders may not be willing to extend large lines of
credit to them.
We want to encourage--not discourage--investors to take a chance on
these entrepreneurs by providing seed capital to startups in hopes that
the business will flourish and remain a viable company.
Our amendment allows this investment and job creation to continue.
With our amendment agriculture research and biotechnology startup
companies like those in my State of Missouri, will continue to be the
engine of job creation.
We all agree that we must reform Wall Street, but we must not punish
Main Street and the very small business startups that are so critical
to job creation.
This bipartisan amendment will help protect the small business
startups vital to job creation across the country, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what I would like to do, if I may, I would
like to make a statement on the Bond, et al, amendment. If my colleague
from Oregon would like to make some comments about this consent request
he made, if it is not too long, then I will reserve my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 4019
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I
intend to be very brief in my comments tonight. I thank the chairman
for his indulgence.
I note that Senator Grassley, who is on the floor, and I have
prosecuted this cause for more open government in the Senate for over a
decade. Senator McCaskill is here. She has tried relentlessly to do the
same thing. I think it is very regrettable, because we have seen, once
again, tonight, as we did on Thursday, that defenders of secret holds
in the Senate continue to pull out all the stops, employ every tool in
the toolbox to throw a monkey wrench into the effort to open the Senate
to transparency and accountability.
This has been a bipartisan effort. It has always been a bipartisan
effort. I particularly credit my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley,
because when we talked about this over a decade, the two of us said we
are going to make this bipartisan every step of the way because
sometimes in the Senate you are in the minority, sometimes you are in
the Senate as part of the majority, but the cause of open and
transparent government ought to be available all the time. It should
not matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority.
I will say the American people are furious at the way business is
done in Washington, DC. The fact that it has been impossible to even
get an up-or-down vote on doing Senate business in public is a textbook
case of why people are so angry.
It is my intent to come with colleagues to the floor again and again
and try to make sure that once and for all we change this pernicious
practice, a practice that, in my view, is an indefensible violation of
the public's right to know.
At a minimum, every Senator ought to be on record publicly with
respect to how they feel about doing the Senate's business in public.
That is what this is all about.
This is not complicated. A hold is one of the most powerful tools a
Senator has. With a secret hold, one colleague
[[Page 8314]]
can keep the American people from even getting a peak at important
Senate business. That is not right. That is not accountable government.
That is not transparent government.
What we ought to do--and I commend particularly Senator Grassley,
Senator Inhofe, and Senator Collins on the other side of the aisle;
Senator Udall has joined me in this effort, Senator Bennet--we have
made this bipartisan every step of the way. It is time for an up-or-
down vote in the Senate with respect to ending secret holds.
We have not even been able to get a direct vote, though we have been
working now for weeks and weeks on a measure that is bipartisan. The
American people want public business done in public, and they certainly
want Democrats and Republicans to come together. That is what Senator
Grassley and I have sought to do.
It is unfortunate that, once again, there has been an objection
tonight to doing public business in public. That is something that
ought to change around here. There is a bipartisan group of us who are
going to stay with it until it does.
I particularly thank the bipartisan group of colleagues on the floor
tonight, led by Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill. We will be
back, and we will be back at it until there is the kind of transparency
and openness in the way the Senate does business so, once and for all,
every hold in the Senate has a public owner. That is what this is all
about. If you want to put a hold on a bill or a measure, as Senator
Grassley has said, you ought to have the guts to go public. Every hold
ought to have a public owner. We are going to stay with it until that
happens.
I express my appreciation again to the chairman of the Banking
Committee who has, at a time when he has a very important piece of
legislation on the floor, indulged this Senator repeatedly in giving me
the opportunity to be on the floor and prosecute this cause for more
openness and transparency. I thank my good friend, the chairman of the
committee. He has done an excellent job on this bill. I appreciate the
time tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator
Tester of Montana as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4056, the Bond-Dodd,
et al, amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I should point out that Senator Brown of
Massachusetts, Senator Cantwell, Senator Begich, and Senator Murray are
cosponsors of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
be the next amendments in order: Senator Cardin and Senator Lugar,
amendment No. 4050, and an amendment of Senator Corker of Tennessee
regarding preemption, with a Senator Carper amendment side by side to
the Corker amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 4056
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators
Bond, Warner, Brown, Cantwell, Begich, Murray and Tester in offering
this amendment to sections 412 and 926 to protect investors and promote
capital formation.
During the Banking Committee's hearings on the financial crisis, the
North American Securities Administrators Association, NASAA, testified
about a serious investor problem. A growing number of private placement
are being used to defraud ``accredited investors.'' An investor is
deemed ``accredited,'' or financially sophisticated and able to
withstand investment losses, if he or she has $1 million in net worth,
including the value of his or her home, or $200,000 in annual salary,
amounts that have not been changed since 1982. ``Accredited investors''
are presumed to be able to fend for themselves, receive fewer
protections, and are eligible to invest in private placements.
Secretary William F. Galvin, the chief securities regulator of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, stated that ``my office has seen a
dramatic increase in the number of 506 [private placement] transactions
sold to inexperienced investors who, on paper, may have met the
accreditation standards but in reality didn't understand the
investments, could not incur the risk of loss these transactions often
entail and did not have the financial sophistication to monitor or
evaluate their investments.''
The committee was concerned to protect such investors, particularly
those who fall victim to sellers who repeatedly engage in securities
fraud.
NASAA testified that:
These offerings enjoy an exemption from registration under
federal securities law, so they receive virtually no
regulatory scrutiny even where the promoters or broker-
dealers have a criminal or disciplinary history. As a result,
Rule 506 offerings have become the favorite vehicle under
Regulation D, and many of them are fraudulent.
Regarding the ``accredited investor'' standard, NASAA testified that
``[I]nflation has seriously eroded the efficacy of the existing
thresholds in the definition of `accredited investor' since their
adoption in 1982'' and supports periodic adjustments of these
standards.
For the past several weeks, I have worked with and consulted the
North American Securities Administrators Association, Angel Capital
Association, Private Equity Council and others, and I thank them. We
have crafted language suited to protect investors from those
unscrupulous persons while encouraging capital formation.
New section 926 would disqualify felons and other ``bad actors'' who
have violated Federal and State securities laws from continuing to take
advantage of the rule 506 private placement process. This will reduce
the danger of fraud in private placements.
New section 412 would amend the ``accredited investor'' wealth
threshold by excluding the value of an investor's primary residence.
For example, a widow whose financial wealth was $1 million but had the
majority of that in the value of her home and had a salary of less than
$200,000, would not be deemed to be an ``accredited investor.''
Instead, she would benefit from the broader range of protections
available generally to investors. There are several reasons for this
change:
The net worth test signals a person's ability to bear a loss. If the
cushion for a loss is a person's home, a person making a bad investment
could end up losing his or her home.
Net worth is intended to be a proxy for financial experience and
sophistication. Some people who own valuable homes may not be
sophisticated investors.
Furthermore, real estate prices have greatly appreciated since the
net worth standard for accredited investors was adopted in 1982.
Accordingly, many more investors are now able to meet the current
thresholds based on the value of their homes than was the case in 1982,
which is inconsistent with original regulatory intent.
Also, the SEC would be directed to review the financial standards at
least 4 years to make sure the standards stay relevant.
I am pleased at the support the legislative proposals have received.
The North American Securities Administrators Association on April 27,
2010 issued a letter stating,
We strongly support the adoption of a disqualification
provision to prevent recidivists from conducting securities
offerings under Regulation D, Rule 506 (a regulatory
exemption for private placements). This change would provide
much needed investor protection from securities law violators
and would not prevent legitimate issuers, including small
businesses, who use this exemption, to raise capital.
Participants in the Regulation D offerings are ``accredited
investors'' as established under SEC rules. The monetary
standards for determining who qualifies for ``accredited
investor'' status haven't changed since it was established in
1982 and inflation has rendered them almost meaningless.
Therefore, we support, at a minimum, excluding the investor's
primary residence from the net worth standard.
The Angel Capital Association on April 21, 2010 issued a statement
saying that ``[t]hese amendments will ensure that high growth
entrepreneurs have access to a strong pool of angel capital
[[Page 8315]]
and that investors are better protected from fraud.''
The purposes of sections 412 and 926 of the bill have been to better
protect investors while facilitating capital formation. This amendment
more completely accomplishes these goals.
It is an important contribution Senator Bond has made, along with
others, to this bill. It was never our intention at all. Startup
companies need what are called angel investors who are critically
important for startup ideas that do not necessarily attract the
traditional capital to get behind them. People who step up and take a
chance on new ideas deserve some special recognition. The fact is, they
have played a very critical role in capital formation over the years.
Therefore, I was pleased to be able to accept the amendment and make
it a part of this bill. This will allow for efficient capital access
for entrepreneurs and also provide fraud protection for investors.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from the Angel Capital Association.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Angel Capital Association, Apr. 21, 2010]
Angel Capital Association Supports Amendments to Financial Reform Bill
Sen. Dodd's amendments allow for efficient capital access for
entrepreneurs and also improve fraud protection for investors
Kansas City, MO.--The Angel Capital Association (ACA)
supports two amendments that we understand will be offered by
Sen Christopher Dodd on the Restoring American Financial
Stability Act of 2010. These amendments will ensure that high
growth entrepreneurs have access to a strong pool of angel
capital and that investors are better protected from fraud.
ACA has been vocal in our concerns about this bill to date
as two of the original sections had the potential of
significantly reducing the number of accredited angel
investors and creating complicated and potentially expensive
regulations for entrepreneurs raising angel financing. ``It
is clear that concerns conveyed by ACA and many others about
hurting start-up businesses struck a chord with Sen. Dodd and
his staff,'' said Elizabeth Karter, ACA's public policy
committee chair and president of the Angel Investor Forum in
Connecticut. ``They have worked hard to improve the bill so
that it balances the importance of small business capital
formation while protecting angels and other types of private
investors from securities law violators.''
The amendments bring new meanings to two sections of the
bill:
Section 412: Adjusting the Accredited Investor Standard.
The thresholds for ``accredited investor'' would stay the
same as they are currently, although the standard for net
worth of $1 million would now exclude the investor's primary
residence. While ACA would have preferred no adjustment to
the standard for angel investors, we believe this is a good
compromise.
The act would also have the Securities and Exchange
Commission review the thresholds at least every four years,
with any adjustments considering the protection of investors,
the public interest and the state of the economy. ``We
appreciate the direction to consider the economic impact of
any adjustments to accredited investor standards in the
future, as we believe that innovative start-up businesses are
some of the most important creators of high quality jobs in
the country,'' said Karter.
Section 926. Regulation D Offerings.
The amendment deletes all previous language and
disqualifies individuals who have been determined to be ``bad
actors'' by Federal and State authorities from using
Regulation D 506 private offerings (which include angel
investments, but many other types of investments as well).
``ACA particularly likes this amendment because not only
does it increase investor protections, but it ensures uniform
regulation of these private offerings across the United
States and it keeps the reporting requirements for
entrepreneurs the same as they are currently. The current
uniform system is efficient for small businesses that attract
angel capital,'' said Marianne Hudson, executive director of
ACA.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bond. He is the initiator of
the idea. Others joined with him. It is, again, a strong contribution
to this bill.
I see my colleagues from Indiana, Kansas, and Maryland. I yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as
a cosponsor of the Bond amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3789, as Further Modified
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I call up in the regular order my
amendment No. 3789 and send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment No. 3789 is now pending. It is
further modified.
The amendment, as further modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for an exclusion from the authority of the Bureau
of Consumer Financial Protection for certain automobile manufacturers,
and for other purposes)
At the end of subtitle B of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1030. EXCLUSION FOR AUTO DEALERS.
(a) In General.--The Director and the Bureau may not
exercise any rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, or any
other authority, including authority to order assessments
over a motor vehicle dealer that is predominantly engaged in
the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and
servicing of motor vehicles, or both.
(b) Certain Functions Excepted.--The provisions of
subsection (a) shall not apply to any person, to the extent
that such person--
(1) provides consumers with any services related to
residential or commercial mortgages and self-financing
transactions involving real property;
(2) operates a line of business that involves the extension
of retail credit or retail leases involving motor vehicles,
and in which--
(A) the extension of retail credit or retail leases are
provided directly to consumers; and
(B) the contract governing such extension of retail credit
or retail leases is not predominantly assigned to a third-
party finance or leasing source; or
(3) offers or provides a consumer financial product or
service not involving or related to the sale, financing,
leasing, rental, repair, refurbishment, maintenance, or other
servicing of motor vehicles, motor vehicle parts, or any
related or ancillary product or service.
(c) No Impact on Prior Authority.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to modify, limit, or supersede the
rulemaking or enforcement authority over motor vehicle
dealers that could be exercised by any Federal department or
agency on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) No Transfer of Certain Authority.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, the consumer financial
protection functions of the Board of Governors and the
Federal Trade Commission shall not be transferred to the
Director or the Bureau to the extent such functions are with
respect to a person described under subsection (a).
(e) Coordination With Office of Service Member Affairs.--
The Board of Governors and the Federal Trade Commission shall
coordinate with the Office of Service Member Affairs, to
ensure that--
(1) service members and their families are educated and
empowered to make better informed decisions regarding
consumer financial products and services offered by motor
vehicle dealers, with a focus on motor vehicle dealers in the
proximity of military installations; and
(2) complaints by service members and their families
concerning such motor vehicle dealers are effectively
monitored and responded to, and where appropriate,
enforcement action is pursued by the authorized agencies.
(f) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the
following definitions shall apply:
(1) Motor vehicle.--The term ``motor vehicle'' means--
(A) any self-propelled vehicle designed for transporting
persons or property on a street, highway, or other road;
(B) recreational boats and marine equipment;
(C) motorcycles;
(D) motor homes, recreational vehicle trailers, and slide-
in campers, as those terms are defined in sections 571.3 and
575.103 (d) of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor thereto; and
(E) other vehicles that are titled and sold through
dealers.
(2) Motor vehicle dealer.--The term ``motor vehicle
dealer'' means any person or resident in the United States,
or any territory of the United States, who is licensed by a
State, a territory of the United States, or the District of
Columbia to engage in the sale of motor vehicles.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am not going to talk on this
amendment now. This is the amendment about the auto dealers and that
they only be regulated at one time and at one place. That is what we
are trying to get to.
I hope we can get to a majority vote on this amendment. I think that
would be appropriate. It is a major issue, and I look forward to, at
some point in time, when we are considering this bill,
[[Page 8316]]
having a vote on it with a majority, not a supermajority, requirement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Amendment No. 4050 to Amendment No. 3739
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4050.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Cardin], for himself, Mr.
Lugar, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Merkley,
Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Whitehouse, proposes an amendment
numbered 4050 to amendment No. 3739.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the disclosure of payments by resource extraction
issuers)
On page 1187, line 9, strike ``effective.'' insert the
following: ``effective.
Subtitle K--Resource Extraction Issuers
SEC. 995. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) It is in the interest of the United States to promote
good governance in the extractive industries sector.
Transparency in revenue payments benefits oil, gas, and
mining companies, because it improves the business climate in
which such companies work, increases the reliability of
commodity supplies upon which businesses and people in the
United States rely, and promotes greater energy security.
(2) Companies in the extractive industries sector face
unique tax and reputational risks, in the form of country-
specific taxes and regulations. Exposure to these risks is
heightened by the substantial capital employed in the
extractive industries, and the often opaque and unaccountable
management of natural resource revenues by foreign
governments, which in turn creates unstable and high-cost
operating environments for multinational companies. The
effects of these risks are material to investors.
SEC. 996. DISCLOSURE OF PAYMENTS BY RESOURCE EXTRACTION
ISSUERS.
Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(p) Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction
Issuers.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `commercial development of oil, natural gas,
or minerals' includes exploration, extraction, processing,
export, and other significant actions relating to oil,
natural gas, or minerals, or the acquisition of a license for
any such activity, as determined by the Commission;
``(B) the term `foreign government' means a foreign
government, a department, agency, or instrumentality of a
foreign government, or a company owned by a foreign
government, as determined by the Commission;
``(C) the term `payment'--
``(i) means a payment that is--
``(I) made to further the commercial development of oil,
natural gas, or minerals; and
``(II) not de minimis; and
``(ii) includes taxes, royalties, fees (including license
fees), production entitlements, bonuses, and other material
benefits, that the Commission, consistent with the guidelines
of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (to the
extent practicable), determines are part of the commonly
recognized revenue stream for the commercial development of
oil, natural gas, or minerals;
``(D) the term `resource extraction issuer' means an issuer
that--
``(i) is required to file an annual report with the
Commission; and
``(ii) engages in the commercial development of oil,
natural gas, or minerals;
``(E) the term `interactive data format' means an
electronic data format in which pieces of information are
identified using an interactive data standard; and
``(F) the term `interactive data standard' means
standardized list of electronic tags that mark information
included in the annual report of a resource extraction
issuer.
``(2) Disclosure.--
``(A) Information required.--Not later than 270 days after
the date of enactment of the Restoring American Financial
Stability Act of 2010, the Commission shall issue final rules
that require each resource extraction issuer to include in an
annual report of the resource extraction issuer information
relating to any payment made by the resource extraction
issuer, a subsidiary of the resource extraction issuer, or an
entity under the control of the resource extraction issuer to
a foreign government or the Federal Government for the
purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or
minerals, including--
``(i) the type and total amount of such payments made for
each project of the resource extraction issuer relating to
the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals;
and
``(ii) the type and total amount of such payments made to
each government.
``(B) Consultation in rulemaking.--In issuing rules under
subparagraph (A), the Commission may consult with any agency
or entity that the Commission determines is relevant.
``(C) Interactive data format.--The rules issued under
subparagraph (A) shall require that the information included
in the annual report of a resource extraction issuer be
submitted in an interactive data format.
``(D) Interactive data standard.--
``(i) In general.--The rules issued under subparagraph (A)
shall establish an interactive data standard for the
information included in the annual report of a resource
extraction issuer.
``(ii) Electronic tags.--The interactive data standard
shall include electronic tags that identify, for any payments
made by a resource extraction issuer to a foreign government
or the Federal Government--
``(I) the total amounts of the payments, by category;
``(II) the currency used to make the payments;
``(III) the financial period in which the payments were
made;
``(IV) the business segment of the resource extraction
issuer that made the payments;
``(V) the government that received the payments, and the
country in which the government is located;
``(VI) the project of the resource extraction issuer to
which the payments relate; and
``(VII) such other information as the Commission may
determine is necessary or appropriate in the public interest
or for the protection of investors.
``(E) International transparency efforts.--To the extent
practicable, the rules issued under subparagraph (A) shall
support the commitment of the Federal Government to
international transparency promotion efforts relating to the
commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.
``(F) Effective date.--With respect to each resource
extraction issuer, the final rules issued under subparagraph
(A) shall take effect on the date on which the resource
extraction issuer is required to submit an annual report
relating to the fiscal year of the resource extraction issuer
that ends not earlier than 1 year after the date on which the
Commission issues final rules under subparagraph (A).
``(3) Public availability of information.--
``(A) In general.--To the extent practicable, the
Commission shall make available online, to the public, a
compilation of the information required to be submitted under
the rules issued under paragraph (2)(A).
``(B) Other information.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
require the Commission to make available online information
other than the information required to be submitted under the
rules issued under paragraph (2)(A).
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this subsection.''.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes to thank
Senator Dodd for his extraordinary leadership on this bill. I know he
is working through a lot of amendments. I know a lot of us have been
urging him to allow us to present amendments. I know he has been
challenged by the efforts on trying to schedule votes on amendments. I
thank him, on behalf of all his colleagues in the Senate, for his
extraordinary leadership in bringing this bill forward. I thank Senator
Shelby for working with Senator Dodd. I know we are close to bringing
this bill to completion. I am very proud to be a supporter of this
bill. It is critically important that we do what we need to do in
regulating Wall Street.
This amendment is a bipartisan amendment. Senator Lugar has filed a
bill, of which I am a proud cosponsor, that accomplishes basically the
same purpose. He has been a real leader in the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on transparency in the oil industry and its contracts.
The nature of the oil, gas, and mining sector means that companies
often have to operate in countries that are often autocratic, unstable,
or both. Investors need to know the full extent of a company's exposure
when they are operating in countries where they are subject to
expropriation, political and social turmoil, and reputational risks.
In Nigeria, for example, American companies have taken oilfields
offline because of rebel activity and instability in the Niger Delta.
In 2009, Nigeria was producing almost 1 million barrels less than it is
able to produce because of conflict and instability. With so much
production offline, American oil companies, such as Chevron and Exxon,
have lost jobs and have lost
[[Page 8317]]
profits and are forced to pay higher production costs because of added
security.
This amendment goes a long way in achieving that transparency by
requiring all foreign and domestic companies registered with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission to report, in their annual reports
to the SEC, how much they pay each government for access to their oil,
gas, and minerals.
In short, this amendment is a critical part of the increased
transparency and good governance we have been striving to achieve in
the financial industry. We have been working with a lot of groups on
perfecting this amendment, and we have made some changes that will give
the SEC the utmost flexibility in defining how these reports will be
made so that we not get the transparency we need without burdening the
companies.
I thank all involved in the modifications that have been made to this
amendment from how it was originally filed in order to make it not a
burden on the industry but to provide the necessary information to
investors.
This amendment also is about creating jobs and preserving jobs. This
amendment is important because it will help create and preserve U.S.
jobs in the oil, gas, and mining sector by improving the conditions in
which oil and mining companies have to work.
Transparency will help create more stable governments, which in turn
allows U.S. companies to operate more freely--and on a level playing
field--in markets that otherwise are too risky or unstable.
This is a bipartisan amendment because Democratic and Republican
colleagues both know we are creating a new standard of transparency
that will apply to the world's extractive industries and is in the best
interest of companies in competing on a level playing field. That has
been what Senator Lugar has been standing for within the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations, and I applaud him on his leadership.
In fact, this amendment would apply to all oil, gas, and mining
companies required to file periodic reports with the SEC, which
includes 90 percent of the major internationally operating oil
companies and 8 out of the 10 largest mining companies in the world--
only 2 of which are U.S. companies.
We currently have a voluntary international standard for promoting
transparency. A number of countries and companies have joined the
Extracted Industries Transparency Initiative, an excellent initiative
that has made tremendous strides in changing the cultural secrecy that
surrounds extractive industries. But too many countries and too many
companies remain outside this voluntary system.
I had the honor of chairing the Helsinki Commission for this
Congress. This has been one of our top priorities because it deals with
good governance as well as investors knowing whether a company is
making payments. The U.S. needs to take a leadership position in regard
to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. This amendment,
attached to this bill, will go a long way in promoting that leadership
for the United States.
The notion of transparency has been endorsed by the G8, the IMF, the
World Bank, and a number of regional development banks. It is clear to
the financial leaders of the world that transparency in natural
resources development is key to holding government leaders accountable
for the needs of their citizens and not just building up their personal
offshore bank accounts.
I urge my colleagues to stand up for investors and citizens and give
them the information they need to hold governments accountable. I urge
my colleagues to join me and the other cosponsors of this amendment and
support the creation of a historic transparency standard that will
pierce the veil of secrecy that fosters so much corruption and
instability in resource-rich countries.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague in
commending the work of Senator Dodd and Senator Shelby and the
privilege of offering this amendment now with Senator Cardin.
I rise to support the transparency amendment, No. 4050, introduced by
Senator Cardin on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Schumer,
Senator Feingold, Senator Merkley, Senator Johnson, and Senator
Whitehouse. This amendment builds on language introduced in the Energy
Security Through Transparency Act of 2009. If passed, the amendment
would help to reverse the ``resource curse'' by revealing payments made
here and abroad to governments for oil, gas, and minerals.
The Senate debate on financial regulatory reform has included a great
deal of debate on transparency. Transparency empowers citizens,
investors, regulators, and other watchdogs and is a necessary
ingredient of good governance for countries and companies alike.
Adoption of the Cardin-Lugar amendment would bring a major step in
favor of increased transparency at home and abroad. Its passage would
empower investors to have a more complete view of the value of their
holdings. It would bring more information to global commodity markets,
which would benefit price stability. More importantly, it would help
empower citizens to hold their governments to account for the decisions
made by their governments in the management of valuable oil, gas, and
mineral resources and revenues.
In countries abundant in natural resources, corruption and
authoritarianism, transparency is a vital tool. Yet in recent weeks we
have also been reminded of the need for greater transparency in
management at home. The amendment builds on the findings of a Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations staff report entitled the ``Petroleum
and Poverty Paradox: Assessing U.S. and International Community Efforts
to Fight the Resource Curse,'' which noted that many resource-rich
countries that should be well off are, in fact, terribly poor.
History shows that oil, gas reserves, and minerals frequently can be
a bane, not a blessing, for poor countries, leading to corruption,
wasteful spending, military adventurism, and instability. Too often,
oil money intended for a nation's poor ends up lining the pockets of
the rich or is squandered on showcase projects instead of productive
investments. A classic case is Nigeria, the eighth largest oil
exporter. Despite $\1/2\ trillion in revenues since the 1960s, poverty
has increased, corruption is rife, and violence roils the oil-rich
Niger Delta.
This ``resource curse'' affects us as well as producing countries. It
exacerbates global poverty which can be a seedbed for terrorism, it
empowers autocrats and dictators, and it can crimp world petroleum
supplies by breeding instability.
The essential issue at stake is a citizen's right to hold its
government to account. Americans would not tolerate the Congress
denying them access to revenues our Treasury collects. We cannot force
foreign governments to treat their citizens as we would hope, but this
amendment would make it much more difficult to hide the truth.
Transparency also will benefit Americans at home. Improved governance
of extractive industries will improve investment climates for our
companies abroad, it will increase the reliability of commodity
supplies upon which businesses and people in the United States rely,
and it will promote greater energy security.
This amendment requires foreign and domestic companies listed on U.S.
stock exchanges and exchanging American depository receipts to disclose
in their regular SEC filings their extractive payments to governments
for oil, gas, and mining.
Nothing in this amendment accuses companies of malfeasance. Quite the
contrary. Several oil, gas, and minerals companies have taken important
steps in this arena. The aforementioned Foreign Relations Committee
minority staff report details several examples of individuals going the
extra mile to convince governments of the importance of transparency
and to provide training to meet international standards.
Yet the value of companies themselves can be negatively impacted
[[Page 8318]]
when there is not transparency. As noted in the findings of this
amendment:
Companies in the extractive sector face unique tax and
reputational risks in the form of country-specific taxes and
regulations. Exposure to these risks is heightened by the
substantial capital employed in the extractive industries,
and the often opaque and unaccountable management of natural
resource revenues by foreign governments, which in turn
creates unstable and high-cost operating environments for
multinational companies. The effects of these risks are
material to investors.
Many analysts say among the root causes of the current financial
crisis was a failure by investors to have access to sufficient
information about their investments and an excessive reliance on the
judgments of the ratings agencies, which proved to be highly faulty.
That experience argues strongly for more disclosure and information.
Considering the well-established link between oil payments and the
business climate, many investors might be interested in this
information--particularly socially responsible investors.
This domestic action will complement multilateral transparency
efforts such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative--the
EITI--under which some countries are beginning to require all
extractive companies operating in their territories to publicly report
their payments.
We encourage the President to work with members of the G8 and the G20
to promote similar disclosures through their exchanges and their
jurisdictions. As Secretary Clinton noted in her questions for the
record on January 12, 2009:
President-Elect Obama has put a high priority on promoting
transparency in government more broadly. I look forward to
working with the President-Elect and the Treasury Department
to promote greater transparency at the G-8 and now the G-20
as well.
In developing this amendment, our staffs consulted with the
Secretary, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Treasury
Department, the Department of the Interior, energy companies, mining
companies, the industry representatives, and nongovernmental
organizations.
When financial markets see stable economic growth and political
organization in resource-rich countries, supplies are more reliable and
risk premiums factored into the process at the gas pump are diminished.
Information is critical to maintaining healthy economies and healthy
political systems. I ask for your support on passage of this important
amendment.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am happy to come to the Senate floor and
join in support of the Cardin-Lugar amendment. I am an original
cosponsor along with Senators Feingold, Whitehouse, and others. It is
very straightforward, as Senator Lugar explained, and Senator Cardin
before him.
It would require companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange to
disclose in their SEC filings extractive payments made to governments
for oil, gas, and mining. This encourages greater corporate
transparency, particularly in terms of those operating in countries
where corruption and violence are rampant.
I would also say there is a complementary amendment, which I hope
will be considered at the same time because it is in that same vein. It
is amendment No. 3997, offered by Senators Brownback, Feingold, and
myself, and it basically would make the same requirement related to
extractive minerals.
Mr. President, I went to the Democratic Republic of Congo 5 years ago
with Senator Brownback. We visited Goma, and I returned to that
location just a few months ago with Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio. On
those two visits I saw a situation in Goma which is almost impossible
to describe. Imagine one of the poorest places on Earth, where people
literally are starving to death, where they are facing the scourge of
disease, where malaria and AIDS cuts short the lives of far too many,
where there are thousands who are bunched into these just desolate and
desperate refugee camps, and then imagine nearby an active volcano.
That is the situation in Goma.
If you think that is the combination that would be the worst on
Earth, there is more. Superimpose on this misfortune an ongoing war and
unrest that has been part of this section of Africa at least since the
time of the Rwandan genocide--that long--more than 16 years ago.
Unspeakable crimes are being committed, particularly against women in
this region, and one of the major reasons is this turns out to be one
of the most powerful sections of Africa. You will find Dian Fossey's
gorillas, and you will find some of the richest stores of virgin timber
and extractive minerals in the world. The fighting goes on every single
day, and these poor people are caught in the crossfire of this terrible
conflict. Armed militias--some left over from the genocide in Rwanda--
continue to operate in the region, terrorizing citizens and inflicting
horrific brutality. The United Nations has a 20,000-member peacekeeping
force, known as MONUC, but it isn't enough.
What is really behind this ongoing violence? Money. Some of it is a
result of a weak Congolese state, and some of the problem is due to the
large number of criminals who have invaded this nation. But what helps
fund the continued violence is an illicit minerals trade that enriches
and helps arm those who continue this mayhem.
Most people probably don't realize the products we use every day--
from automobiles to cell phones--may use one of these minerals from
this area of conflict and that there is a possibility it was mined from
an area of great violence.
We can't begin to solve the problems of eastern Congo without
addressing where the armed groups are receiving their funding, mainly
from the mining of a number of key conflict minerals. We, as a nation
of consumers as well as industry, have a responsibility to ensure that
our economic activity does not support such violence.
That is why I join with Senators Brownback and Feingold to support
the Congo conflict minerals amendment, which is now pending on this
bill. It is a requirement that if a company registered in the United
States uses any of a small list of key minerals from the Congo--
minerals known to be involved in the conflict areas--then such usage
must be disclosed in that company's SEC disclosure. Such companies can
also include additional information to indicate the steps they have
taken to ensure their minerals were mined and paid for legitimately and
legally.
The requirement would sunset in 5 years unless the Secretary of State
certifies that the violence continues to receive support from the
mineral trade. It is a reasonable step to shed some light on this
literally life-and-death issue, and it encourages companies using these
minerals to source them responsibly.
I thank Senators Dodd and Shelby for their consideration of this
amendment. I hope, like the Cardin-Lugar amendment, there will be a
chance
for this Brownback-Feingold-Durbin amendment to be considered before
this bill is completed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). The Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 4056
Mr. DODD. I, too, wish to make a comment, but before I do, I think
the pending business before the Senate and the request consent is the
Bond amendment. Has that been adopted? I urge the question, if I can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the
amendment is pending.
Is there further debate on the amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 4056) was agreed to.
Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider and lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 4050
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments on
the two proposals. One is, I say to my
good friend from Illinois, Senator
Shelby and I have agreed to ac-
[[Page 8319]]
cept the Brownback-Cardin--Cardin-Brownback-Durbin amendment. I am not
sure who the principal authors are. Maybe we can do that on a voice
vote. We submitted that as part of the managers' amendment but, given
the pace of the managers' amendment, it may be necessary to deal with
that separately. But I thank my colleagues for that.
I commend my good friends, Senator Cardin and Senator Lugar from
Indiana, once again. He has taken a leadership role. I am struck by the
fact that just a little while ago we adopted the Cornyn amendment. The
Cornyn amendment puts restraints on the IMF's ability to accept that in
some very poor countries they are going to have to repay their IMF
obligations. That amendment needs some work. But having adopted that
amendment almost unanimously it is now critically important we adopt
this amendment, in my view, because it complements, in a sense, the
Cornyn amendment. Many of these people living in poor countries have
little ability--despite being mineral and resource rich--to accumulate
the wealth so they can avoid having to have IMF assistance to bail them
out or give them assistance during difficult times.
If we are truly interested in the language of the Cornyn amendment,
then we must complement it, in my view, by accepting the Cardin-Lugar
amendment because it goes beyond just the Congo. Despite the good work
being done on that amendment, this goes beyond that.
So I thank Senators Cardin and Lugar for their important bipartisan
amendment requiring additional disclosure to millions of investors who
are making decisions about investing in the extractive industries--
mainly oil, natural gas, and mining--around the world. And I thank them
for modifying the original amendment to streamline the reporting
requirements, adapt as far as practicable the voluntary Extractive
Industries Transparency Initiative disclosure standards, and make other
changes to ease implementation.
We have a similar but more targeted amendment from Senator Brownback,
Senator Durbin, and Senator Cardin, I think, focused on the Congo and
adjoining countries, since mining operations there have for years
helped fuel the brutally violent militias that have caused so much
damage and heartbreak, and killed so many in that strife-torn region.
Given the ongoing emergency in the Congo, I am glad that Senator Shelby
and I have been able to work out an agreement to adopt this Congo
amendment.
This amendment by Senator Cardin is much broader, and is designed to
impose a new international transparency standard on companies listed
and traded on U.S. exchanges who are active in the oil and gas and
mining industries. Senator Cardin and Senator Lugar have focused on
these industries because in many places, especially in Africa, they
involve unique exposures to country- and industry-specific risks--
including reputational risks, tax and regulatory risks, expropriation
risks, and others--as they conduct business operations in countries
where governance and accountability systems are rudimentary, at best--
and where corruption, secrecy and a lack of transparency regarding
public finance are pervasive. Those risks are heightened by the very
large multi-year investments that are required of this industry, their
need to gain access to natural resources, and the often compelling
national security considerations tied to the products developed by this
industry.
In the last few decades many American investors have begun to
consider more seriously the ethical and socially responsible
implications of their investments, and this amendment is a part of that
larger effort. It is also a part of broader international effort to
combat corruption, poverty, hunger and disease throughout Africa, Asia
and Central America by providing a mechanism to ensure greater
transparency for the many ways in which sometimes corrupt and
authoritarian governments in these regions take in huge revenue flows
from oil and gas producers or mining companies, and then fail to
adequately meet the needs of their own vulnerable populations with
social spending funded by the income from those projects.
Let me remind my colleagues of the scale of this problem. A recent
report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the leadership
of Senator Lugar and Senator Kerry concluded that 3.5 billion people
live in countries rich in extractive natural resources such as oil,
gas, minerals and timber. With good governance and transparency, these
resources can generate vast sums to foster growth and reduce poverty.
Instead, many of these countries have weak governance and
administrative systems, so the revenues have often served to actually
worsen corruption and generate violent conflict.
It is known as the ``resource curse,'' or the ``petroleum and poverty
paradox,'' where countries with huge revenue flows from energy
development also frequently have some of the highest rates of poverty,
corruption and violence. Where is all that money going? This amendment,
the Lugar-Cardin amendment, is a first step toward addressing that
issue by setting a new international standard for disclosure. I hope
that other nations, and those in charge of major exchanges in London,
Hong Kong and elsewhere, would follow our lead on this. There is some
indication of interest there, especially in the British Parliament.
The amendment would require companies to better account for the risks
associated with such investments by disclosing basic information about
payments to governments. I believe that many Americans--including
investors and other stakeholders in these firms--would consider this
kind of information material and relevant to their decisions about
whether or not to invest, or whether to divest their current holdings,
from firms engaged in this sort of activity. On its face this interest
appears not to rise to the level of materiality for investors that
currently governs the disclosure requirements of public companies under
Federal securities laws. That is a question we may want to look at more
closely in the Banking Committee. There are also questions about the
precedent this would set for Congress to require disclosures usually
considered to be non-material.
Currently, nearly 30 countries are participants in a voluntary
program designed to increase transparency called the EITI. That is an
important initiative, and I applaud it. Strengthening America's
leadership in the program, with broad new requirements for greater
disclosure by resource extractive companies operating around the world,
would be an important step. Senators Cardin and Lugar have modified his
amendment to base some of the reporting on the standards which have
evolved within this initiative, supported by many oil, energy and
mining companies, and many countries. I am not persuaded by the
arguments some make that this would weaken the EITI and make some
nations less prone to participate in it. To the contrary, I believe it
would strengthen the initiative. And I believe those who have worked
closely within EITI agree.
Because we have not yet been able to hold hearings on this measure
this year--something which I had hoped to do in the Banking Committee
once we had completed this historic financial reform measure--I am not
sure we have all the precise details and the language exactly right,
but the thrust is exactly right and, therefore, in my view, the
amendment by Senators Cardin and Lugar ought to be adopted. We can work
on the details, if we have to, later on, but we should not miss this
opportunity provided by this legislation to make this historic
contribution to something that not only benefits investors here at home
but might make a huge difference in the wealth and opportunity in these
countries.
Again, in some ways I didn't plan it this way, but the fact we have
adopted the Cornyn amendment dealing with the International Monetary
Fund--now, if you wanted to make a difference in all that, this
amendment I think does all that.
I thank my two colleagues--Senator Cardin, who is relatively new to
this institution but has brought a history of his interest in this
subject matter. Of
[[Page 8320]]
course, my 30 years with Senator Lugar have been among the most joyous
of the relationships I have had in this body. He never ceases to amaze
me in his commitment, his energy, and his passion on these issues, and
we are a richer and better country because of his participation in
these debates over many years. Again, I am delighted to be associated
with him in an effort such as this. I urge my colleagues tomorrow,
either on voice vote or recorded vote, to adopt the Cardin-Lugar
amendment.
I would like to add Senators Baucus, and I believe I have, Senator
Tester, as cosponsors of the Bond-Dodd, et al., amendment, No. 4056.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. I commend the work of Senator Dodd on this legislation. We
have more work to do.
I rise to speak to an amendment I have filed, amendment No. 3891, the
homeowners' relief and stabilization amendment.
The reason I rise is to speak about a topic we have all talked about
and we have taken action about over the last couple years. We have had
some progress made, but unfortunately not enough progress has been
made. I speak tonight about foreclosures.
Foreclosures in America are still a huge problem for the American
people. RealityTrac, one of the entities that keeps records on
foreclosures and has been a leading source for this information, tells
us that the numbers of U.S. residential properties receiving at least
one foreclosure filing jumped 21 percent in 2009 to a record of 2.82
million housing units.
Foreclosure activity has increased sharply in March of 2010. The
number of homes in some stage of the foreclosure process rose from the
previous quarter.
Given the significant Federal response to the foreclosure crisis, it
is disheartening--I think that is an understatement--that foreclosure
filings in March of 2010 were up nearly 8 percent from March of 2009,
the highest monthly total since RealtyTrac began reporting the numbers
in January of 2005. So we have a ways to go on this very difficult
challenge that our Nation has faced.
I commend the administration for using the so-called TARP funds, the
Trouble Asset Relief Program funds, for initiatives to help homeowners,
which I think indicates that the Federal Government is concerned about
assisting those who have lost their jobs or have seen their home values
plummet as a result of Wall Street recklessness.
You could add a few more words to ``recklessness,'' but in the
interest of time, I will not.
Despite the actions of the Congress over the last several years,
despite the actions of the prior administration and this administration
especially, despite all that effort, according to the Congressional
Oversight Panel of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund, as of February of
2010, 6 million borrowers were more than 60 days delinquent on
mortgages and only 168,708 homeowners had received final 5-year loan
modifications.
We have a long way to go and we have to implement, in my judgment,
new and different and more effective strategies to deal with
foreclosures. More must be done to stem this tide of foreclosures that
has resulted not only from widespread subprime mortgages but also from
increasing unemployment, which has devastated communities and
neighborhoods across America.
This amendment--which I thank both colleagues from New York, Senators
Gillibrand and Schumer, for cosponsoring--would also use TARP dollars
to help unemployed homeowners. It is very simple: $3 billion would go
into a HUD fund to establish a temporary emergency funding relief
program based on a very successful program run in Pennsylvania since
1983. It has helped tens of thousands of homeowners in Pennsylvania.
This may be the most successful mortgage foreclosure relief program
in the country, at least that I am aware of. Some may want to debate
that. But I think in Pennsylvania we have a good track record. We need
something akin to that, something very similar to that on a national
scale.
This program and this idea are designed to respond to high
unemployment situations where homeowners are temporarily unable to
afford their monthly mortgage payment due to at least three conditions:
unemployment, of course; underemployment is another situation; thirdly,
a medical condition could also prevent someone from making their
mortgage payment every month.
Subprime mortgage loans and predatory lending sparked a wave of
foreclosures, as many borrowers defaulted on loans that they were sold
using predatory practices, that they could never afford in the first
place to make the payments for. Now the country finds itself in the
midst of a second wave--a second wave of foreclosures, where prime
borrowers struggle to make their monthly payments after a job loss or
unsuccessful attempts at refinancing or modifications.
Despite all of the work that has been done here over the last couple
of years, despite all of the work done by the administration, we still
find borrowers, homeowners, who, because of a job loss or another
adverse circumstance, cannot make their monthly payments. We need
direct help for them. We do not need something around the margins; we
need direct help for them.
The amendment provides for loans to homeowners only after determining
the borrower has a reasonable prospect of being able to resume making
full mortgage payments, and we will consider their ability to repay in
establishing loan terms, conditions, or rates.
In addition to the individual homeowner problem--someone who has lost
their job or has some circumstance that prevents them from making their
payments--in addition to the individual, we have full neighborhoods
across the country that continue to suffer from housing price declines,
lost property tax revenues, abandoned properties, and, of course,
blight. This amendment would also direct $1 billion of TARP funds to
the Neighborhood Stabilization Program created by the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 to provide grants to State and local
governments and eligible entities to purchase and redevelop foreclosed
and abandoned properties with the goal of stabilizing communities. So
this is a neighborhood problem in addition to being a problem with
individual homeowners.
The language from this amendment was included in H.R. 4173, the Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 which passed the
House of Representatives late last year.
In conclusion, I wish to reemphasize the need for this type of an
amendment because we still, unfortunately, have not tackled the
foreclosure problem in America. In fact, it is a foreclosure crisis
which will prevent us from having an economy that is in full recovery.
We did the right thing by making sure the TARP dollars were able to
sustain what happened in the strategy to help our financial companies
around the United States of America, especially those that were in real
trouble in 2008 and 2009. We did the right thing on the recovery bill.
We did the right thing on the HIRE Act a couple of months ago. We have
taken a lot of steps to rescue and stabilize our economy. We are
growing now. We have some growth. We have some employment growth. But
unless we tackle completely the foreclosure problem with a very direct,
focused effort, we are not going to fully recover and we are not going
to have the kind of economic growth we should.
So I would urge my colleagues to join Senator Schumer, Senator
Gillibrand, me, and others in voting for and seeking the passage of
this amendment, No. 3791, the homeowners relief and neighborhood
stabilization amendment.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page 8321]]
Amendment No. 4050
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Cardin-
Lugar amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after a period
of morning business on Tuesday, May 18, the Senate resume consideration
of S. 3217, and there be 30 minutes for debate with respect to the
Gregg amendment No. 4051 prior to a vote, with the time equally divided
and controlled between Senators Dodd and Gregg or their designees; that
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote in
relation to the amendment, with no amendment in order to the amendment
prior to the vote; that the Gregg amendment be subject to an
affirmative 60-vote threshold, and if the amendment achieves that
threshold, then it be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table; that if it does not achieve that threshold, then it be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
by Senator Corker of Tennessee on preemption be in order, and that the
side-by-side amendment offered by Senator Carper be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to
speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
Lieutenant Brandon Aaron Barrett
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Marine LT
Brandon Barrett from Marion, IN. Brandon was only 27 years old when he
lost his life on May 5 while serving bravely in support of Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.
Lieutenant Barrett was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine
Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp
Lejeune.
Today, I join family and friends in mourning his death who will
forever remember him as a loving son, brother, and friend. He is
survived by his mother, Cindy Barrett, his father, Brett Barrett, his
sisters, Ashley and Taylor Barrett and his brother, Brock Barrett.
Brandon was a native of Marion. Prior to entering the Marine Corps in
2006, Brandon graduated from Marion High School and attended the U.S.
Naval Academy. His family and friends describe him as a bright student,
a gifted football and baseball star, and a proud Hoosier who
courageously refused to take freedom for granted.
Brandon was deployed on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan.
During his service, Brandon earned an array of awards, including the
Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, National Defense Service
Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Afghanistan Campaign
Medal and NATO International Security Assistance Force Medal.
While we struggle to express our sorrow over this loss, we take pride
in the example of this American hero. We cherish the legacy of his
service and his life.
As I search for words to honor this fallen Marine, I recall President
Lincoln's words to the families of the fallen at Gettysburg: ``We
cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated
it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little
note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
they did here.''
It is my sad duty to enter the name of Brandon Barrett in the Record
of the U.S. Senate for his service to our country and for his profound
commitment to freedom, democracy, and peace.
I pray that Brandon's family finds comfort in the words of the
prophet Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the
Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DR. JOSEPH BASCUAS
Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I would like to recognize
Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas for serving as interim president of Becker
College and for his dedication to high academic standards and
expectations.
The Becker College board of trustees named Dr. Bascuas as interim
president on September 26, 2008. Dr. Bascuas gave his leadership and
support to the Becker College community in various ways during his
tenure and succeeded in bringing a united vision to the college during
a challenging time. Throughout his tenure as Becker College's interim
president, Dr. Bascuas advocated strong steps to bolster transparency
and the fiscal responsibility of the college, such as maintaining a
budget surplus at a time of economic uncertainty. As president, Dr.
Bascuas championed cost containment for working families by urging the
trustees to freeze tuition and room and board for 2009-2010. He
promoted high academic standards and expectations, thus increasing
pride in the institution.
I have been proud to hear of the record of Becker College under his
leadership. Becker College serves more than 1,700 students from 18
States and 12 countries and offers over 25 diverse, top-quality
bachelor degree programs in unique, high-demand career niches. Dr.
Bascuas brought more than 25 years of experience in higher education to
Becker College. In addition to his teaching and leading experiences, he
has written and coauthored numerous papers on psychological topics and
has presented at symposia and conferences. Dr. Bascuas utilized his
great volume of experience and passion for quality higher education in
his role as Becker College interim president.
I stand here today to congratulate Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas on the
completion of his honorable work as Becker College's interim president.
I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Dr. Joseph W. Bascuas
continued success.
____________________
VICTORIOUS SENATE PAGES
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on May 16, 2010, the Senate Pages played
the House Pages in an annual ultimate Frisbee game on the National
Mall. This year the Senate Pages won the game commandingly 6-3.
Congratulations Senate Pages.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
REMEMBERING WALTER J. HICKEL
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on Saturday morning, May 8,
Alaskans awakened to the sad news that our beloved former Governor,
Walter J. Hickel, passed away at the age of 90.
While those in my State viewed him as an Alaska legend, students of
American political history may recall Governor Hickel more vividly as
President Nixon's first Secretary of the Interior. They may recall that
Hickel left that position after criticizing President Nixon for his
handling of the Vietnam war and the student protests that gripped the
Nation over our involvement in Southeast Asia.
In 1970, following what has come to be known as the ``Kent State
Massacre,'' Secretary Hickel wrote a letter urging President Nixon to
give more respect to the views of young people critical of the war.
That letter included the passage, ``I believe this administration finds
itself today embracing a philosophy which appears to lack appropriate
concern for the attitude of a great mass of Americans--our young
people.''
On November 25, 1970, Governor Hickel was fired over the letter. His
firing came days after he told ``60 Minutes'' that he had no intention
of quitting. He said he would only go away ``with an arrow in my heart,
not a bullet in my back.'' The Nixon administration was all too pleased
to oblige.
[[Page 8322]]
If President Kennedy were still alive, he surely would have viewed
this series of events as a ``profile in courage.'' To this day, when
Alaskans are asked for one word that describes Walter Hickel, the word
``backbone'' immediately comes to mind.
They may have fired Wally Hickel but they didn't silence him.
Governor Hickel left the national political scene following this
incident to focus on Alaska and the Arctic, and his independence, his
judgment, and his backbone inspired leaders of Alaska for decades to
come.
Governor Hickel appreciated that public policy is a team effort, not
an individual sport. Two of Governor Hickel's enduring legacies to the
State--Commonwealth North, Alaska's leading public affairs forum, and
the Institute of the North, a public policy think-tank--continue to
shape public discourse today. Governor Hickel would be proud that last
week, even as Alaskans grieved his loss, the Institute of the North
conducted its annual Emerging Leaders Dialogue in Sitka.
Governor Hickel's life was large, as large as all of Alaska. Alaska
is one of the few corners of America in which legends can still be
made. And Governor Hickel surely will go down in history as an Alaska
legend.
Born August 18, 1919, in Kansas, Walter J. Hickel came to Alaska in
1940 with 37 cents in his pocket. As he sailed into Prince William
Sound on the S.S. Yukon, overwhelmed by the breathtaking natural
beauty, Hickel remarked, ``You take care of me, and I'll take care of
you.''
The words were prophetic. After working as a bartender, a carpenter,
and an aircraft inspector, Governor Hickel saved enough money to
purchase a half-completed house. He finished building the house, sold
it, and then built two more. Eventually, he built several hundred
homes.
Long time Fairbanks newspaper columnist Dermot Cole recalls Governor
Hickel's success in enlisting community support to build Fairbanks'
first modern hotel in 1955. Fairbanks needed a hotel, and Governor
Hickel needed financing. He asked the Fairbanks community to invest in
its future by purchasing bonds to finance the project, and 583
bondholders invested in the project. The smallest investment was $10,
the largest $25,000. The project was built in 7 months. The bondholders
were paid back by 1960. And that hotel, The Travelers Inn, still greets
visitors to Alaska's Golden Heart City. Today, it is known as the
Westmark Fairbanks.
Governor Hickel went on to build Anchorage's Captain Cook Hotel, as a
show of confidence in the economy of Southcentral Alaska following the
1964 earthquake. Today, the Captain Cook Hotel offers 547 rooms, in 3
towers, and is Alaska's member of the Preferred Hotel Group.
Alaska sure took care of Wally Hickel, and Governor Hickel more than
fulfilled his promise to take care of Alaska, proving that economic
development and environmental conservation are not mutually exclusive
concepts. His life demonstrates that a developer can be a
conservationist and a conservationist can be a developer. One is left
to wonder which title he preferred.
Governor Hickel believed that economies can be grown through big
projects. He certainly was not one who shared the view prevalent in
some circles of the Lower 48, that Alaska should be locked up as a
museum to compensate for poor land use decisions made elsewhere in
America. During a 1978 interview, he referred to Alaska as a ``happy,
young, vibrant country.'' Blunt and honest, he lamented those who
argued, ``Don't walk here. Don't walk there. Don't step on the
dandelions. You can't use this.'' He referred to this kind of thinking
as ``What a bunch of bull.''
Yet this is the same Walter Hickel who dispatched legions of Interior
Department employees to commemorate the first observance of Earth Day
in 1969; the same Walter Hickel who told the National Petroleum Council
in 1970, ``The right to produce [petroleum] is not the right to
pollute. America must prove to itself as well as to others worldwide
that it has the ability to clean up the garbage it has left in its
wake.''
He insisted that those who benefited from the development of Alaska's
resources pay Alaskans their due. And during Governor Hickel's second
stint as Governor during the 1990s, the major oil companies were
persuaded to pay the State more than $4 billion in disputed back taxes
and royalties. Historian Stephen Haycox refers to this as ``a very
significant legacy . . . because he forced the oil companies to
acknowledge that they had a debt they owed to Alaska.'' In the wake of
the Exxon Valdez oilspill, Governor Hickel used settlement funds to
purchase land for Kachemak Bay State Park and Afognak State Park.
I could go on all day about the life of Wally Hickel. A man who
constantly struggled with dyslexia, he authored several books and
monographs and many articles. A self-educated individual, he received
numerous honorary degrees and befriended foreign heads of state.
A fighter for Alaska's statehood, Hickel attended the birth of the
State of Alaska. And history will remember that very little of
significance happened in Alaska in the ensuing 50 years that Walter J.
Hickel was not involved in. It is no overstatement to suggest that
Governor Hickel had a substantial hand in Alaska's start, its present,
and its future.
During Alaska's 50th anniversary of statehood celebration last year,
I marveled at the fact that so many of the people who made our history
are still alive and available to inspire succeeding generations of
Alaskans as we continue to grow our State. I would like to think that
giants such as Wally Hickel could live forever.
On behalf of all of our Senate colleagues, I extend condolences to
Governor Hickel's wife Ermalee, his children, grandchildren, and great
grandchildren. Thank you for sharing this great American with Alaska
and our Nation.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO WALTER SCOTT, JR.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, on the occasion of his
79th birthday, I want to take this opportunity to honor fellow
Nebraskan Walter Scott, Jr. for his exceptional business and civic
leadership and his significant contributions to the telecommunications,
construction, and mining industries, as well as his community, State,
and country.
Walter began his distinguished career at Peter Kiewit Sons' Inc.,
formerly Kiewit Construction, working during the summers for Kiewit's
construction operations, where his father also worked. In 1953 after
earning his civil engineering degree from Colorado State University, he
became an engineer for Kiewit in Omaha. A year later, Walter joined the
U.S. Air Force as an air installation officer, inspecting military
construction projects. Upon returning to Kiewit after his service,
Walter excelled in the company, being elected to the board of
directors, then becoming vice president in 1964. In 1979 Walter was
named president and, later that year, succeeded Peter Kiewit as
chairman of the board.
Over the next decade, Walter used his leadership and keen insights to
advance Kiewit and develop the company to its full potential.
Foreseeing the needs of society, Walter began diversifying the
company's investment to include mining, energy, and telecommunications
interests. By 1992 this expansion had led to the division of Peter
Kiewit Sons' Inc. into two major subsidiaries: Kiewit Construction
Group, continuing the company's historical excellence in construction
and mining; and Kiewit Diversified Group, later renamed Level 3
Communications, focusing on high-speed fiber optics networks and
geothemeral powerplants. Kiewit is now a Fortune 500 company and is a
recognized industry leader.
To this day, Walter remains engaged in the industries he helped to
shape, continuing as director and chairman emeritus at Kiewit and
serving as chairman of the board at level 3. Walter's numerous
contributions to business have been acknowledged with dozens of
accolades, including the Horatio Alger Award, the Golden Plate Award
[[Page 8323]]
from the American Academy of Achievement, and induction into the
Nebraska Business Hall of Fame.
Beyond his notable accomplishments in business, Walter's civic
service and philanthropic contributions have enriched Nebraska and left
a lasting impact on our home State. In 1996 Walter helped create the
Peter Kiewit Institute, working with the University of Nebraska to
provide tomorrow's leaders in information science, technology, and
engineering with an unparalleled education. Walter has also given his
service to numerous community and nonprofit organizations, including
Creighton University, Joslyn Art Museum, Boys & Girls Club of the
Midlands, Omaha Development Foundation, Omaha Zoological Society, and
Nebraska Game and Parks Foundation. Additionally, I have had the
pleasure of serving with Walter as a member of the Open World Board of
Trustees, providing international leadership and building multi-
national relationships to effect positive change in Eurasian countries.
In closing, Walter Scott's illustrious leadership and generous
service has strengthened his community, state, and country. On behalf
of our fellow Nebraskans and Americans, I thank Walter for his
innovation and leadership and wish him the best for the future.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
A message from the President of the United States was communicated to
the Senate by Mr. Pate, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGE REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
a message from the President of the United States submitting a
nomination which was referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
(The nomination received today is printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
At 2:06 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Novotny, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 959. An act to increase Federal Pell Grants for the
children of fallen public safety officers, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 5014. An act to clarify the health care provided by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum
essential coverage.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 268. A concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of National Women's Health Week, and for
other purposes.
The message further announced that pursuant to Executive Order No.
12131, and the order of the House of January 6, 2009, the Speaker
appoints the following Members of the House of Representatives to the
President's Export Council: Mr. Reichert of Washington and Mr. Tiberi
of Ohio.
The message also announced that pursuant to section 301 of the
Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381), as amended by
Public Law 111-114, the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate
jointly reappoint on May 13, 2010, the following individuals to a 5-
year term on the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance: Ms.
Barbara L. Camens of Washington, DC, as Chair and Ms. Roberta L.
Holzwarth of Illinois.
The message further announced that pursuant to section 13101 of the
HITECH Act (Public Law 111-5), and the order of the House of January 6,
2009, the Speaker reappoints the following member on the part of the
House of Representatives to the HIT Policy Committee for a term of 3
years: Mr. Paul Egerman of Weston, Massachusetts.
Enrolled Bills Signed
The PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. Byrd) announced that he had signed the
following enrolled bills, which were previously signed by the Speaker
of the House:
S. 1067. An act to support the stabilization and lasting
peace in northern Uganda and areas affected by the Lord's
Resistance Army through development of a regional strategy to
support multilateral efforts to successfully protect
civilians and eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's
Resistance Army and to authorize funds for humanitarian
relief and reconstruction, reconciliation, and transitional
justice, and for other purposes.
S. 3333. An act to extend the statutory license for
secondary transmissions under title 17, United States Code,
and for other purposes.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following bill was read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 959. An act to increase Federal Pell Grants for the
children of fallen public safety officers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 268. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of National Women's Health Week, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
____________________
ENROLLED BILLS PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, May 17, 2010, she
had presented to the President of the United States the following
enrolled bills:
S. 1067. An act to support stabilization and lasting peace
in northern Uganda and areas affected by the Lord's
Resistance Army through development of a regional strategy to
support multilateral efforts to successfully protect
civilians and eliminate the threat posed by the Lord's
Resistance Army and to authorize funds for humanitarian
relief and reconstruction, reconciliation, and transitional
justice, and for other purposes.
S. 3333. An act to extend the statutory license for
secondary transmissions under title 17, United States Code,
and for other purposes.
____________________
PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS
The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:
POM-100. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Senate of
the State of Louisiana urging Congress to establish a
National Military Family Relief Fund and create a simple and
cost-effective way for taxpayers to lend a helping hand to
military families in need; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 43
Whereas, United States service members, especially national
guardsmen and reservists, often face a significant salary
reduction when called upon to serve our country; and
Whereas, recent studies show that fifty-five percent of
married national guard members and reservists report a loss
of income in relation to their civilian jobs when they are
called to active duty, and fifteen percent experience a pay
cut of thirty thousand dollars or more; and
Whereas, national guard members and reservists serving in
the Global War On Terrorism make up a larger percentage of
frontline fighting forces than in any other war in U.S.
history; and
Whereas, all military families deserve thanks and
recognition for their sacrifices, and helping to ease the
financial pressures that challenge so many of America's
finest families must be a top priority; and
Whereas, U.S. Congressman Bill Foster has introduced House
Resolution 5941, legislation designed to provide relief for
military families that would allow taxpayers to contribute to
a National Military Family Relief Fund by filling a voluntary
donation in a check-off box on federal income tax forms; and
Whereas, the individually determined donation for the
National Military Family Relief Fund would be added to the
supporter's tax bill or deducted from a rebate allowing U.S.
citizens to support military families without placing any
extra burden on the federal budget; and
Whereas, all service members and veterans who are serving,
or have served, in Iraq or Afghanistan or other regions of
service would be eligible for grants from the National
Military Family Relief Fund; and
Whereas, military family relief funds have already been
introduced or established in at least twenty-seven states
with citizens, corporations and community organizations
proving an eagerness to lend a helping hand by generously
donating to military families in need. Therefore, be it
[[Page 8324]]
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes
the Congress of the United States to approve H.R. 5941 to
establish a National Military Family Relief Fund and create a
simple and cost-effective way for taxpayers to lend a helping
hand to military families in need; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be
transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate and
the clerk of the United States House of Representatives and
to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United
States Congress.
____
POM-101. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah expressing support for policies that
promote and foster energy innovation development in the state
of Utah; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 15
Whereas, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 159 requires states to enact
legislation requiring the revocation or suspension of an
individual's driver license for at least six months upon
conviction of any drug-related offense;
Whereas, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 159 requires withholding 10% of
certain federal aid from states that fail to enact this
legislation;
Whereas, the federal government should not dictate policy
or legislation of this kind for the state;
Whereas, for Utah to be exempt from this federal
requirement, the Governor must submit to the United States
Secretary of Transportation a written certification that he
is opposed to the enactment or enforcement of a law related
to revocation of a person's driver license for any drug-
related offense, and also submit a written certification that
the Utah Legislature has adopted a resolution expressing
opposition to the federal requirement; and
Whereas, the state of Utah shall enforce its own driver
license law, which provides that Utah's Driver License
Division is not required to suspend a person's license for a
violation of certain drug-related offenses if the violation
did not involve a motor vehicle and the convicted person is
participating in, or has successfully completed, substance
abuse treatment at a licensed substance abuse treatment
program that is approved by the Division of Substance Abuse
and Mental Health or is participating in, or has successfully
completed, probation through the Department of Corrections
Adult Probation and Parole: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, declare their opposition to the
enactment or enforcement of a federal law mandating, in all
circumstances, the revocation or suspension of an
individual's driver license upon conviction of any drug-
related offense; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor declare the
state's determination to enforce its own law on the subject,
which provides that persons convicted of certain drug-related
offenses will not have their driver licenses revoked or
suspended if the violation did not involve a motor vehicle
and the convicted person is participating in, or has
successfully completed, substance abuse treatment at a
licensed substance abuse treatment program that is approved
by the Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health or is
participating in, or has successfully completed, probation
through the Department of Corrections Adult Probation and
Parole; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be prepared and
delivered to the Governor of the state of Utah, and that the
Governor submit a copy of the resolution to the United States
Secretary of Transportation; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Utah Department of Transportation and to the members of
Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-102. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah urging Congress to amend federal law to
ensure that consumers have the right to access their Fair
Isaac Corporation credit scores or any other source for
credit scores used by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae
from the three major credit agencies annually at no cost; to
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 7
Whereas, under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act of 2003, consumers are entitled to a free credit report
once each year from any credit agency, including the nation's
three major credit bureaus, which are Experian, Trans Union,
and Equifax;
Whereas, the credit scores used in over 90% of financial
transactions, including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie
Mae, are a version of a Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) credit
score;
Whereas, FICO's website, www.MyFico.com, is the only
location where consumers may access their true FICO credit
scores;
Whereas, FICO takes the credit information furnished by
Experian, Trans Union, and Equifax and calculates that
information using an algorithm to develop the three credit
scores;
Whereas, after Experian partially severed its relationship
with FICO in 2009, consumers can no longer access their FICO/
Experian credit score;
Whereas, now consumers can only access their Trans Union/
FICO and Equifax/FICO credit scores on FICO's website, and
they are charged $14.95 each, while lenders and other
creditors can still access all three FICO credit scores from
the three major credit agencies;
Whereas, although other companies have developed their own
credit scores using their own formulas, ranges, and scores,
lenders and creditors and other financial service companies
generally do not consider them reliable;
Whereas, these scores generated by other companies are
often found to be substantially different than the FICO
credit scores, even though they are widely promoted as the
actual consumer credit score;
Whereas, current federal law should be changed to address
the consumers' right to access their FICO credit scores from
the three major credit agencies once each year;
Whereas, when consumers access their free credit report
from www.AnnualCreditReport.com, they should be given the
right to their FICO credit scores annually at no cost;
Whereas, credit agencies should not be required to bear any
pass through costs from FICO in providing free FICO credit
scores once each year to consumers;
Whereas, credit agencies should allow consumers the right
to access their credit scores from each major credit agency
used by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae; and
Whereas, by making it possible for consumers to access
their credit scores, which are used in almost every financial
transaction, true fairness will return to the credit scoring
access system: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, urge the United States Congress
to amend federal law to ensure that consumers have the right
to access their Fair Isaac Corporation credit scores or any
other source for credit scores used by Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac, or Ginnie Mae from the three major credit agencies
annually at no cost; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, and to the
members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-103. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah urging the President and Congress to
refrain from designating new national monuments in the San
Rafael Swell area, the Cedar Mesa area, and any other area in
Utah; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 11
Whereas, the Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 431, empowers
the President of the United States to singlehandedly bypass
congressional, state, and local land management policies and
tie up any federal land in Utah through national monument
declarations;
Whereas, a recent confirmed United States Department of
Interior (DOI) internal memorandum declares that the 75-by-40
mile San Rafael Swell and surrounding ``canyons, gorges,
mesas, and buttes,'' plus an area of unspecified size
referred to as the Cedar Mesa area, among others, ``may be
good candidates for National Monument designation under the
Antiquities Act;''
Whereas, the San Rafael Swell and surrounding areas and the
Cedar Mesa area described in the DOI memorandum are in Emery,
Wayne, and San Juan Counties, Utah;
Whereas, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United
States Constitution grants the United States government the
power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia and over all ``places purchased by the consent of
the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and
other needful buildings'';
Whereas, no lands in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa
areas of Utah fit into this category;
Whereas, the United States Constitution delegates to the
government of the United States no other power of exclusive
jurisdiction over land in Utah, other than that referenced in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17;
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution states, ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States'';
Whereas, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States
Constitution states, ``The United States shall guarantee to
every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government'';
Whereas, the constitutional guarantee to Utah of a
republican form of government is abrogated and violated when
the President of the United States purports through the
Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 431, to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction with the mere stroke of a pen over lands in the
San Rafael and Cedar Mesa areas that do not fit the category
of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, exclusive jurisdiction
land;
Whereas, lands in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas
of Utah are currently managed by the United States Bureau of
Land
[[Page 8325]]
Management (BLM) pursuant to the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and the Act directs the BLM
to manage public lands according to Resource Management Plans
(RMPs) which ``shall be consistent with State and local plans
to the maximum extent [the Secretary of Interior] finds
consistent with Federal law and the purpose of [FLPMA]'';
Whereas, the state of Utah and the counties of Emery,
Wayne, and San Juan have recently completed an expensive and
protracted multi-year FLPMA and National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process with the BLM and the public to revise and
update the BLM's RMPs in planning areas which include the San
Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas;
Whereas, the revised RMPs do not call for the creation of
national monuments in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa
areas;
Whereas, creating national monuments in the San Rafael
Swell and Cedar Mesa areas would violate and undercut the
integrity of the RMPs revision process in Emery, Wayne, and
San Juan Counties where the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa
areas are situated, and would be inconsistent with the plans
and policies of the state of Utah and those counties and
their duly elected governmental boards and leaders, all in
violation of the constitutional guarantee of a republican
form of government as well as violating federal statutory
consistency requirements of FLPMA;
Whereas, a presidential proclamation declaring national
monuments in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas would
single-handedly bypass the revised RMPs and the universal
opposition by the duly elected leaders of the state of Utah
and the counties where those lands lie;
Whereas, a presidential proclamation of this type would
constitute an illegitimate arrogation of exclusive
jurisdiction over lands by the President, exceeding the
bounds of legitimate and lawful authority permitted by the
United States Constitution;
Whereas, the Antiquities Act states, ``The President . . .
may reserve as a part [of a national monument] parcels of
land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to
the smallest areas compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected. . . .''
Whereas, the size of the 1996 Grand Staircase National
Monument in Garfield and Kane Counties far exceeded ``the
smallest areas compatible'' with the feigned object of that
monument;
Whereas, the size of the San Rafael Swell area stated in
the DOI memo, namely 75-by-40 miles plus surrounding canyons,
gorges, mesas, and buttes, is staggering in terms of a
national monument;
Whereas, Utah favors protecting the remarkably scenic,
recreational, and sensitive areas of the San Rafael Swell and
Cedar Mesa areas, however highest and best use of vast tracts
of land in those areas is continued grazing and
environmentally sensitive energy and mineral development done
in such a way as to protect and preserve the scenic and
recreational values;
Whereas, as history has demonstrated in the case of the
Grand Staircase National Monument, many thousands of acres of
important grazing and mineral and other multiple use
resources and values have been closed to reasonable
development due to the multi-hundred thousand acre national
monument designation;
Whereas, Senator Bob Bennett has introduced S. 3016 in the
United States Senate, which would prohibit the further
extension or establishment of national monuments in Utah,
except by express authorization of Congress; and
Whereas, Utah's economy, industry, culture, way of life,
and its viability as a sovereign state guaranteed a
republican form of government depend on reasonable multiple-
use access to the BLM lands in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar
Mesa areas of the state, most of which will be taken away
through national monument designation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, express their opposition to the
presidential creation of any large area national monument, as
an abuse and violation of the Antiquities Act's smallest-
area-compatible mandate; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor oppose the
presidential creation of new national monuments in the San
Rafael Swell area, Cedar Mesa area, and any other area of
Utah; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor declare
openly to the United States government that this unchecked
exercise of power concentrated in the President portends
serious consequences for Utah, as nearly 70% of the State is
federally owned; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor declare
openly to the United States government that the exercise of
this power would essentially coronate the President, giving
him the ultimate ability to determine the fate of nearly 70%
of the entire state with the mere stroke of an unchecked
presidential pen; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor urge
Congress to check the President's ability to exercise such
power by amending the Antiquities Act to clarify its actual
intent, which is to establish small discrete monuments or
memorials as existed in Utah prior to the unfortunate
creation of the 1996 Grand Staircase National Monument; be it
further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor strongly
urge the federal government to manage federal public lands in
Utah according to state and local government plans, policies,
and public input as promised by the Federal Land Policy
Management Act of 1976 and the United States constitutional
guarantee of a republican form of government on equal footing
with all states in the Union, or otherwise convey the federal
public lands to Utah for proper care and management,
consistent with the original intent of the Constitution's
Framers; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor express
support for S. 3016, introduced in the United States Senate,
which would prohibit the further extension or establishment
of national monuments in Utah, except by express
authorization of Congress; be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives, and to the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____
POM-104. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah expressing support for the Escalante
Heritage/Hole-in-the-Rock Center Board's efforts to preserve
the history of the Hole-in-the-Rock pioneers and the
settlement of the Escalante area; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 1
Whereas, in 1879, citizens of towns throughout Southern
Utah answered the call of John Taylor, President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to colonize one
of the most remote parts of the Territory of Utah;
Whereas, taking what these colonizers thought would be a
shortcut to the San Juan area, they traveled through the
frontier town of Escalante, which was settled in 1876, to the
Colorado River where they blasted and chiseled out a road in
the crack of the canyon wall, descending one thousand feet to
the Colorado River;
Whereas, while this was the most difficult part of the
trek, it was only one of many difficulties they experienced
before reaching their destination and establishing a
settlement at Bluff, Utah;
Whereas, what they thought would be a six-week journey took
six months;
Whereas, the road these individuals created on their
journey became the first road in the Territory of Utah,
traveling from west to east, to be funded by the Legislature,
though it cost only a few thousand dollars to purchase
dynamite to blast through the walls of the Hole-in-the-Rock;
Whereas, during the winter of 1879-80, 250 men, women, and
children, trailing over 1,000 head of livestock, blazed a
trail through 200 miles of the most rugged terrain in the
West;
Whereas, Elizabeth Decker, a member of the colonizing party
described it as ``. . . the roughest country you or anybody
else ever saw. It's nothing in the world but rocks and holes,
hills and hollows'';
Whereas, during their six-month journey, the San Juan
colonizers were tempered like fine steel for the formidable
task of tilling the land and establishing law and order;
Whereas, in reaching the San Juan area, the colonizers
demonstrated unwavering faith and devotion to duty and set
the standard for future generations;
Whereas, in 2002, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints donated nine acres of land in Escalante to build a
Heritage Center, and also donated a water meter, which was
critical in allowing the project to move ahead;
Whereas, in 2007, the Richfield office of the Utah
Department of Transportation granted the Escalante Heritage
Center $125,000 to do a feasibility study, which was
performed by Landmark Design of Salt Lake City and completed
in 2008;
Whereas, in 2009, the Salt Lake City office of the Utah
Department of Transportation granted the Escalante Heritage
Center $500,000 to build the first of four phases of the
project;
Whereas, the Escalante Heritage Center is a nonprofit
corporation engaged in raising private and public funds to
construct and maintain a center dedicated to preserving the
history and heritage of the Hole-in-the-Rock pioneers and the
Escalante area;
Whereas, the state transportation improvement program
includes $200,000 for preliminary engineering to improve
Hole-in-the-Rock Road;
Whereas, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has expressly
recognized in an administrative determination in 1988 that
Garfield County owns an R.S. 2477 right-of-way for the Hole-
in-the-Rock Road;
Whereas, Garfield County, Kane County, and the state of
Utah have valid documentation that this road has been in
existence since 1879 and has been in continuous use for over
131 years;
Whereas, Garfield County, Kane County, and the state of
Utah have expended public
[[Page 8326]]
tax monies to improve and maintain this road and other R.S.
2477 roads in their respective counties for access to BLM and
National Park Service-managed lands;
Whereas, Kane County has filed a Quiet Title Action to
secure forever the property right to this road and other
roads in the county;
Whereas, this case, called the Hole-in-the-Rock Quiet Title
Action, will be heard in federal court in the near future;
Whereas, the Garfield County Commission fully supports this
endeavor and is the government sponsor of the project;
Whereas, the Mayor and City Council of Escalante fully
support the Escalante Heritage Center in its endeavor to
preserve the history and heritage of the area;
Whereas, the Mormon Pioneer National Heritage Area project
has declared the building of the Escalante Heritage Center
its top priority project;
Whereas, the Escalante Heritage Center Board has received
letters of support from officials of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, the offices of both Senators
Hatch and Bennett, and the office of Congressman Jim
Matheson;
Whereas, the Escalante Heritage Center Board has the
support of officials of the Grand Staircase Escalante
National Monument, who feel that a science center on one side
of the town of Escalante and a history center on the other
side would represent bookends of learning for everyone
visiting the area; and
Whereas, Garfield County has received a letter of support
from the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument for road
improvements: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
expresses its support for the Escalante Heritage/Hole-in-the-
Rock Center Board's efforts to preserve the history of the
Hole-in-the-Rock pioneers and the settlement of the Escalante
area, and to construct a building in which to tell the story
of these historic pioneers and to improve the road over which
they traveled; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Escalante Heritage Center Board, the Garfield County
Commission, the Mayor and City Council of Escalante City, the
Richfield and Salt Lake City offices of the Utah Department
of Transportation, Landmark Design, the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____
POM-105. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah expressing opposition to participating in
the Western Climate Initiative; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
House Joint Resolution No. 21
Whereas, Utah's location and natural resources are an
economic advantage and catalyst for economic growth and
opportunity for Utah's citizens through abundant and
affordable power, providing the seventh lowest electric rates
in the nation;
Whereas, the nation's coal fired power plants provide for
half of the United States' electricity demand, and power
generated from Utah's abundant and clean burning coal
provides for nearly 90% of the state's power needs;
Whereas, participation in the Western Climate Initiative
(WCI) requires Utah, through public policy, to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions without legislative consultation or public
input;
Whereas, there has been no balanced and unbiased economic
analysis of the costs associated with carbon reduction
mandates, the economic impacts of participation in a regional
cap and trade program, and the consequential effect of the
increased costs of doing business in Utah;
Whereas, the credibility of global climate science, data,
and modeling that cannot explain declining temperatures over
the last decade, coupled with indications that the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has incorporated
flawed science to push policymakers, requires reevaluation of
the ``consensus'' and full scientific scrutiny of the claims;
Whereas, forcing business, industry, and food producers to
reduce carbon emissions through government mandates and cap
and trade policies will increase the cost of doing business,
push companies to do business with lower cost states or
nations, and increase consumer costs for electricity, fuel,
and food;
Whereas, the Congressional Budget Office warns that the
cost of cap and trade policies under consideration for the
WCI, and nationally, will be borne by consumers and will
place a disproportionately high burden on poorer households;
Whereas, there are growing scientific concerns that simply
implementing carbon reduction in Utah, the United States, or
in the developed world will not have a significant impact
while countries like China, Russia, Mexico, and India are
greatly expanding their carbon footprints;
Whereas, carbon capture and sequestration are new
technologies not yet proven, not yet commercially
demonstrated, and facing legal and regulatory challenges;
Whereas, if all nations globally met a Kyoto-style carbon
dioxide reduction, climate temperature would be reduced only
0.07 of a degree by 2050, and tremendous economic growth
would be sacrificed for very little global warming gain; and
Whereas, no state or nation has enhanced economic
opportunities for its citizens or increased Gross Domestic
Product through cap and trade or other radical carbon
reduction policies: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah urges
the Governor to withdraw Utah from the WCI; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to
Governor Herbert, the WCI, the Governor's Blue Ribbon
Advisory Council on Climate Change, the International Panel
on Climate Change, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, and to
the members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-106. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah urging the United States Environmental
Protection Agency to immediately halt its carbon dioxide
reduction policies and programs and withdraw its
``Endangerment Finding'' and related regulations until a full
and independent investigation of climate data and global
warming science can be substantiated; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
House Joint Resolution No. 12
Whereas, proposed cap and trade legislation before the
United States Congress, together with potential state actions
to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2), would result in
significantly higher energy costs to American consumers,
business, and industry;
Whereas, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) ``Endangerment Finding'' and proposed action
to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is based
on questionable climate data and would place significant
regulatory and financial burdens on all sectors of the
nation's economy at a time when the nation's unemployment
rate exceeds 10%;
Whereas, global temperatures have been level and declining
in some areas over the past 12 years;
Whereas, the ``hockey stick'' global warming assertion has
been discredited and climate alarmists' carbon dioxide-
related global warming hypothesis is unable to account for
the current downturn in global temperatures;
Whereas, there is a statistically more direct correlation
between twentieth century temperature rise and
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere than
CO2;
Whereas, outlawed and largely phased out by 1978, in the
year 2000 CFCs began to decline at approximately the same
time as global temperatures began to decline;
Whereas, emails and other communications between climate
researchers around the globe, referred to as ``Climategate,''
indicate a well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate
global temperature data in order to produce a global warming
outcome;
Whereas, there has been a concerted effort by climate
change alarmists to marginalize those in the scientific
community who are skeptical of global warming by manipulating
or pressuring peer-reviewed publications to keep contrary or
competing scientific viewpoints and findings on global
warming from being reviewed and published;
Whereas, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), a blend of government officials and scientists, does
no independent climate research but relies on global climate
researchers;
Whereas, Earth's climate is constantly changing with recent
warming potentially an indication of a return to more normal
temperatures following a prolonged cooling period from 1250
to 1860 called the ``Little Ice Age'';
Whereas, more than $7 billion annually in federal
government grants may have influenced the climate research
focus and findings that have produced a ``scientific
consensus'' at research institutions and universities;
Whereas, the recently completed Copenhagen climate change
summit resulted in little agreement, especially among growing
CO2-emitting nations like China and India, and
calls on the United States to pay billions of dollars to
developing countries to reduce CO2 emissions at a
time when the United States' national debt will exceed $12
trillion;
Whereas, the United States Department of Agriculture
estimates that current legislation providing agriculture
offsets and carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions
would result in tree planting on 59 million acres of crop and
pasture land, damaging America's food security and rural
communities;
Whereas, according to the World Health Organization, 1.6
billion people do not have adequate food and clean water; and
Whereas, global governance related to global warming and
reduction of CO2 would ultimately lock billions of
human beings into long-term poverty: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah urges
the United States Environmental Protection Agency to
immediately halt its carbon dioxide reduction policies and
programs and withdraw its ``Endangerment Finding'' and
related regulations until a full and independent
investigation of climate data and global warming science can
be substantiated; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
United States Environmental
[[Page 8327]]
Protection Agency and to the members of Utah's congressional
delegation.
____
POM-107. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah urging the United States Government and
the Secretary of the Interior to provide continued financial
assistance to the unincorporated community of Dutch John,
Utah; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
Whereas, the Dutch John Federal Property Disposition and
Assistance Act of 1998 disposed of certain federal properties
located in Dutch John, Utah, and provided for assistance to
Daggett County for the delivery of basic services to the
Dutch John community, and for other purposes;
Whereas, for the purpose of defraying costs of
administration and provision of basic community services, an
annual payment of $300,000, as adjusted by the Secretary of
the Interior for changes in the Consumer Price Index for all-
urban consumers published by the Department of Labor, has
been provided from the Upper Colorado Basin Fund authorized
by Section 5 of the Act of April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 107,
chapter 203; 43 U.S.C. 620d), to DaggettCounty, Utah or in
accordance with Subsection (c), to Dutch John, Utah, for a
period not to exceed 15 years beginning the first January 1
that occurs after the date of the effective date of this
resolution;
Whereas, these payments for the purpose of defraying costs
of administration and provision of basic community services
will terminate December 31, 2013;
Whereas, Dutch John was established in 1958 by the Bureau
of Reclamation to provide housing and serve project
construction needs for the construction of Flaming Gorge Dam;
Whereas, permanent structures for housing, administrative
offices, maintenance, and other public purposes continue to
be owned and maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation;
Whereas, during construction of the dam, more than 2,000
people were housed in the town;
Whereas, the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States
Forest Service, responsible for land management at Dutch John
and surrounding Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area,
continue to provide basic services and facilities for the
community;
Whereas, basic services for Dutch John, as well as the
operating and administrative costs for the town prior to
1998, were financed by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
United States Forest Service, then reimbursed by annual power
sales revenue;
Whereas, the federal costs of providing the full range of
community facilities and services in Dutch John had
substantially grown over the years, and in 1998 approached $1
million annually;
Whereas, currently, Daggett County is providing these basic
community services to Dutch John, such as road maintenance,
water, and sewer;
Whereas, to offset these costs, while a traditional
community tax base was being established in Dutch John,
Daggett County received an annual subsidy that is to last for
15 years from public power revenues;
Whereas, the Dutch John Federal Property Disposition and
Assistance Act of 1998 anticipated that in the initial 15-
year period commercial developments would be established that
would help finance local services; and
Whereas, the commercial developments that were anticipated
to occur in Dutch John to help finance local services have
not been established: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, urge the United States
Government and the Secretary of the Interior to provide
continued financial assistance to the unincorporated
community of Dutch John, Utah, in the amount of at least
$500,000 annually, as adjusted by the Secretary of the
Interior for changes in the Consumer Price Index for all-
urban consumers published by the Department of Labor, from
the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund for a period not to
exceed 15 years, for the purpose of defraying costs of
administration and the provision of basic community services;
be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
United States Secretary of the Interior, the members of
Utah's congressional delegation, the United States Forest
Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Daggett County
Commission.
____
POM-108. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah expressing support for the creation of
the Statue of Responsibility Monument and recognizing the
state of Utah's claim to the honorable moniker as ``Utah--
Birth Place of the Statue of Responsibility''; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 16
Whereas, forty years ago, Holocaust survivor and author of
``Man's Search for Meaning'', Dr. Viktor E. Frankl, declared
that in order for freedom to endure generation after
generation, our liberties need to be lived in terms of
responsibleness;
Whereas, Dr. Frankl then challenged America to create a
Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast to complement the
message of the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast, and that
these two monuments would forever stand as visual reminders
of the two principles, liberty and responsibility, required
to keep freedom's flame burning bright;
Whereas, for a nation to endure, at crucial times in its
history, its core values must be revisited, reenergized, and
reenthroned;
Whereas, in 1997, internationally renowned Utah sculptor,
Gary Lee Price, was commissioned by the Statue of
Responsibility Foundation to design the Statue of
Responsibility;
Whereas, Mr. Price's design was approved by the Statue of
Responsibility Foundation's Board of Trustees in 2005;
Whereas, the Statue of Responsibility Foundation has
received over $700,000 of in-kind donation support from over
20 Utah companies for the completion of the project's initial
phase, which was completed in 2008;
Whereas, Dr. Viktor Frankl's widow, Eleonore Frankl, along
with other national and international dignitaries, sits on
the Statue of Responsibility Foundation's International Board
of Advisors;
Whereas, the Statue of Responsibility Foundation will begin
its national public relations campaign once the host city has
been awarded;
Whereas, much of the $300 million cost to build the Statue
of Responsibility monument will be raised in the private
sector by individuals, supportive non-profit organizations,
and public and private corporations;
Whereas, the Statue of Responsibility Foundation is in the
process of determining which potential host city on the West
Coast will be chosen as the resting spot of the monument, and
details of the Statue of Responsibility Monument project can
be seen on www.SORfoundation.org;
Whereas, the Statue of Responsibility Foundation will gift
to the state of Utah a 30-foot tall replica of the Statue of
Responsibility to be located in an appropriate location in
the state so that visitors to Utah will be able to see and be
reminded of the historic role Utah played in the creation of
this historic monument;
Whereas, the Statue of Responsibility Monument will become
an educational and tourism landmark, equal to the Statue of
Liberty, and their combined messages will stand as beacons of
hope and lasting freedom to citizens of all nations;
Whereas, Utah will forever be able to lay claim to the
moniker ``Utah--Birth Place of the Statue of
Responsibility''; and
Whereas, the value of this moniker to the state of Utah
will grow through the years as millions of world visitors
tour both the 300-foot tall monument on the West Coast and
the 30-foot tall replica in Utah: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the State of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, express support for the creation
of the Statue of Responsibility Monument; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor recognize
the state of Utah's claim to the honorable moniker as
``Utah--Birth Place of the Statue of Responsibility;'' be it
further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor encourage
concerned Utahns to assist in the building of what has been
called ``the most compelling monument project to freedom of
the 21st Century'' in ways that are unique to our private
citizens and our corporate citizens; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Statue of Responsibility Foundation's organizational leaders,
the Statue of Responsibility Foundation's Board of Trustees,
and to the members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-109. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah urging the President and Congress to
refrain from designating new national monuments in the San
Rafael Swell area, the Cedar Mesa area, and any other area in
Utah; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 17
Whereas, the Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 31, empowers
the President of the United States to singlehandedly bypass
congressional, state, and local land management policies and
tie up any federal land in Utah through national monument
declarations;
Whereas, a recent confirmed United States Department of
Interior (DOI) internal memorandum declares that the 75-by-40
mile San Rafael Swell and surrounding ``canyons, gorges,
mesas, and buttes,'' plus an area of unspecified size
referred to as the Cedar Mesa area, among others, ``may be
good candidates for National Monument designation under the
Antiquities Act'';
Whereas, the San Rafael Swell and surrounding areas and the
Cedar Mesa area described in the DOI memorandum are in Emery,
Wayne, and San Juan Counties, Utah;
Whereas, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United
States Constitution grants the United States government the
power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia and over all ``places purchased by the consent of
the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for
the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and
other needful buildings'';
[[Page 8328]]
Whereas, no lands in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa
areas of Utah fit into this category;
Whereas, the United States Constitution delegates to the
government of the United States no other power of exclusive
jurisdiction over land in Utah, other than that referenced in
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17;
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution states, ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States'';
Whereas, Article IV, Section 4 of the United States
Constitution states, ``The United States shall guarantee to
every State in the Union a Republican Form of Government'';
Whereas, the constitutional guarantee to Utah of a
republican form of government is abrogated and violated when
the President of the United States purports through the
Antiquities Act, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 431, to exercise exclusive
jurisdiction with the mere stroke of a pen over lands in the
San Rafael and Cedar Mesa areas that do not fit the category
of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, exclusive jurisdiction
land;
Whereas, lands in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas
of Utah are currently managed by the United States Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) pursuant to the Federal Land Policy
Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and, the Act directs the BLM
to manage public lands according to Resource Management Plans
(RMPs) which ``shall be consistent with State and local plans
to the maximum extent [the Secretary of Interior} finds
consistent with Federal law and the purpose of [FLPMA]'';
Whereas, the state of Utah and the counties of Emery,
Wayne, and San Juan have recently completed an expensive and
protracted multi-year FLPMA and National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process with the BLM and the public to revise and
update the BLM's RMPs in planning areas which include the San
Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas;
Whereas, the revised RMPs do not call for the creation of
national monuments in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa
areas;
Whereas, creating national monuments in the San Rafael
Swell and Cedar Mesa areas would violate and undercut the
integrity of the RMPs revision process in Emery, Wayne, and
San Juan Counties where the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa
areas are situated, and would be inconsistent with the plans
and policies of the state of Utah and those counties and
their duly elected governmental boards and leaders, all in
violation of the constitutional guarantee of a republican
form of government as well as violating federal statutory
consistency requirements of FLPMA;
Whereas, a presidential proclamation declaring national
monuments in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar Mesa areas would
single-handedly bypass the revised RMPs and the universal
opposition by the duly elected leaders of the state of Utah
and the counties where those lands lie;
Whereas, a presidential proclamation of this type would
constitute an illegitimate arrogation of exclusive
jurisdiction over lands by the President, exceeding the
bounds of legitimate and lawful authority permitted by the
United States Constitution;
Whereas, the Antiquities Act states, ``The President . . .
may reserve as a part [of a national monument] parcels of
land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to
the smallest areas compatible with the proper care and
management of the objects to be protected.
Whereas, the size of the 1996 Grand Staircase National
Monument in Garfield and Kane Counties far exceeded ``the
smallest areas compatible'' with the feigned object of that
monument;
Whereas, the size of the San Rafael Swell area stated in
the DOI memo, namely 75-by-40 miles plus surrounding canyons,
gorges, mesas, and buttes, is staggering in terms of a
national monument;
Whereas, Utah favors protecting the remarkably scenic,
recreational, and sensitive areas of the San Rafael Swell and
Cedar Mesa areas, however the highest and best use of vast
tracts of land in those areas is continued grazing and
environmentally sensitive energy and mineral development done
in such a way as to protect and preserve the scenic and
recreational values;
Whereas, as history has demonstrated in the case of the
Grand Staircase National Monument, many thousands of acres of
important grazing and mineral and other multiple use
resources and values have been closed to reasonable
development due to the multi-hundred thousand acre national
monument designation;
Whereas, Senator Bob Bennett has introduced S. 3016 in the
United States Senate, which would prohibit the further
extension or establishment of national monuments in Utah,
except by express authorization of Congress; and
Whereas, Utah's economy, industry, culture, way of life,
and its viability as a sovereign state guaranteed a
republican form of government depend on reasonable multiple-
use access to the BLM lands in the San Rafael Swell and Cedar
Mesa areas of the State, most of which will be taken away
through national monument designation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, express their opposition to the
presidential creation of any large area national monument, as
an abuse and violation of the Antiquities Act's smallest-
area-compatible mandate; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor oppose the
presidential creation of new national monuments in the San
Rafael Swell area, Cedar Mesa area, and any other area of
Utah; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor declare
openly to the United States government that this unchecked
exercise of power concentrated in the President portends
serious consequences for Utah, as nearly 70% of the State is
federally owned; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor declare
openly to the United States government that the exercise of
this power would essentially coronate the President, giving
him the ultimate ability to determine the fate of nearly 70%
of the entire state with the mere stroke of an unchecked
presidential pen; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor urge
Congress to check the President's ability to exercise such
power by amending the Antiquities Act to clarify its actual
intent, which is to establish small discrete monuments or
memorials as existed in Utah prior to the unfortunate
creation of the 1996 Grand Staircase National Monument; be it
further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor strongly
urge the federal government to manage federal public lands in
Utah according to state and local government plans, policies,
and public input as promised by the Federal Land Policy
Management Act of 1976 and the United States constitutional
guarantee of a republican form of government on equal footing
with all states in the Union, or otherwise convey the federal
public lands to Utah for proper care and management,
consistent with the original intent of the Constitution's
Framers; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor express
support for S 3016, introduced in the United States Senate,
which would prohibit the further extension or establishment
of national monuments in Utah, except by express
authorization of Congress; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor express
strong opposition to presidential or congressional action
that would unnecessarily restrict and reduce public access to
federal lands; be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives, and to the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____
POM-110. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of Utah expressing support for
policies that promote and foster energy innovation
development in the state of Utah; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
House Resolution No. 8
Whereas, energy innovation research and development is
occurring in universities within the state dealing with
creative and revolutionary ways of gathering and utilizing
energy from a vast array of sources including solar power,
get thermal power, bio fuels, oil shale, underground storage,
hydrogen-upgrading, carbon sequestration, carbon capture,
nuclear power, and computer simulation of the energy
industry;
Whereas, many agencies and organizations in the state are
developing and promoting energy innovation, such as the Utah
Geological Survey, the State Energy Program, the Governor's
Energy Office, USTAR, the Governor's Office of Economic
Development, the Department of Workforce Services, the
Department of Administrative Services' Division of Facilities
Construction and Management, the Department of Natural
Resources' Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, the Utah
Petroleum Association, and the Utah Mining Association;
Whereas, Utah has the potential to be a world leader in
energy innovation and the potential to export its
technological advances to other states and countries;
Whereas, Utah also has the potential to dramatically
improve the health, well-being, and general quality of life
for people not just in the state but across the world through
implementing innovative new technologies and processes that
have the capacity to produce cheap, reliable, and clean
energy supplies;
Whereas, another part of Utah's energy policy is to promote
the development of resources and infrastructure sufficient to
meet the state's growing energy demands, while contributing
to the regional and national energy supply and reducing
dependence on international energy sources;
Whereas, another part of Utah's energy policy is to have
adequate, reliable, affordable, sustainable, and clean energy
resources;
Whereas, a focus on energy innovation, development, and
commercialization in the state has the potential to create
jobs and attract future business to Utah; and
[[Page 8329]]
Whereas, energy innovation has the potential to
significantly increase the state's education fund through the
wise use of the state's trust lands: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah expresses support for policies that promote and foster
energy innovation development in the state of Utah to
increase employment, potentially increase education funding,
and make the state a national and international leader in new
processes and technologies; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to Utah
Geological Survey, the State Energy program, the Governor's
Energy Office, USTAR, the Governor's Office of Economic
Development, the Department of Workforce Services, the
Division of Facilities Construction and Management, the
Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining, the Utah Petroleum
Association, the Utah Mining Association, and to the members
of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-111. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah urging recovery plan funds be spent on
products made or services performed in the United States; to
the Committee on Finance.
Senate Joint Resolution No. 5
Whereas, the nation's economic downturn is having a
critical impact on everyday Americans who are struggling to
maintain or find jobs in an increasingly difficult
environment;
Whereas, these Americans are the taxpayers that provide the
revenue needed to operate essential government services;
Whereas, Congress approved and President Obama signed into
law a taxpayer-sponsored economic recovery package that will
provide billions of dollars to help economically devastated
cities and states immediately provide jobs to millions of
out-of-work Americans through considerable infrastructure
rebuilding, green energy projects, and other projects that
will require manufactured components;
Whereas, taxpayer dollars should be spent to maximize the
creation of American jobs and restore the economic vitality
of our communities;
Whereas, any domestically produced products that are
purchased with economic recovery plan monies will immediately
help struggling American families and will help stabilize the
greater economy; and
Whereas, any economic recovery plan spending should, to
every extent possible, include a commitment from the citizens
of Utah and its elected representatives to buy materials,
goods, and services for projects from companies that produce
within the United States, thus employing the very workers
that pay the taxes for the economic recovery spending plan:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
endorses the efforts of its citizens and government, to work
to maximize the creation of American jobs and restore
economic growth and opportunity by spending recovery plan
funds on products and services that both create jobs and help
keep Americans employed; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
expresses its commitment to purchase only products and
services that are made or performed in the United States
whenever and wherever possible with any economic recovery
monies provided the state of Utah by American taxpayers, as
long as the cost of the product or service is competitive and
its quality is equal or comparable to others; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
supports publishing any requests to waive these procurement
priorities so as to give American workers and producers the
opportunity to identify and provide the American products and
services that will maximize the success of the nation's
economic recovery program; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives, and to the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____
POM-112. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah urging Congress to improve federal--
state consultation on international trade, including
improving the availability of data to states necessary to
evaluate the impact of free trade agreements on economic
development within the states and state authority; to the
Committee on Finance.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 1
Whereas, the economic prosperity of the United States is
best served by embracing free and fair trade in global
markets, investing in innovative research and technologies,
and providing assistance to workers impacted by technology
and trade trends;
Whereas, expanding trade opportunities for American workers
and businesses depends on cooperation between the federal
government and the states;
Whereas, the trade liberalization efforts of the early
1990s and trade agreements such as the North American Free
Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization Uruguay
Round agreements have increased the need for state
policymakers to play a greater role in international trade
decisions;
Whereas, trade liberalization has transformed the
historical state-federal division of power into one of
necessary and critical partnership, and thereby taxed state
agency resources in determining the impact on state laws and
regulations;
Whereas, state sovereignty should be preserved by the
federal government in trade promotion activities;
Whereas, states often lack a clearly defined institutional
trade policy structure and resources, making it difficult to
handle requests from trading partners and federal agencies,
and to articulate to a unified state stance on trade issues;
Whereas, recent trade agreements have proceeded beyond just
discussion of tariffs and quotas and now substantially
address and affect government regulation, taxation,
procurement, and economic development policies that are
historically legislated and implemented at state and local
levels;
Whereas, recent trade agreements that proceed beyond
tariffs and quotas intersect with traditional areas of state
authority under the Tenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, such as regulating the environment, health, and
safety and, thus, have a major impact on the states'
continuing authority to legislate and regulate in these
areas;
Whereas, international lawsuits may be brought against the
United States alleging that its states and localities have
violated trade agreements;
Whereas, international trade agreements must ensure that
non-discriminatory state laws and regulations adopted for a
public purpose and with due process are not preempted or
otherwise undermined and weakened by international sanctions
or penalties;
Whereas, states' interests must be paramount during the
negotiation of international agreements given the direct
impact on their police powers, policies, and programs;
Whereas, there is a need for a strong federal-state trade
policy consultation mechanism;
Whereas, the Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee, a
state-supported advisory committee to the United States Trade
Representative, plays an important role in providing state
input to the United States Trade Representative but which is
limited in its effectiveness by an inability to share
classified information with relevant state officials and
members of the general public;
Whereas, compartmentalization of information within the
Intergovernmental Policy Advisory Committee prevents members
from gathering important and relevant information from those
state officials and members of the general public;
Whereas, in August 2004, the Intergovernmental Policy
Advisory Committee recommended that a federal-state
International Trade Policy Commission would be an ideal
resource for objective trade policy analysis and would foster
communication among federal and state trade policy officials;
Whereas, the creation of an effective federal-state trade
policy infrastructure would assist states in understanding
the scope of federal trade efforts, would assist federal
agencies in understanding the various state trade processes,
and would give states meaningful input into the development
and implementation of United States Trade Representative's
activities;
Whereas, federal-state consultation should include the
timely and comprehensive sharing of information on the
substance and likely impact of trade agreements on state laws
and regulations, appropriate use of the state single points
of contact, improved trade data to assess the impact of
proposed and existing agreements, and a reasonable
opportunity for meaningful input by the states; and
Whereas, in 2006, the Utah State Legislature statutorily
created the Utah International Trade Commission to study and
make recommendations to the Legislature concerning the impact
of international agreements adopted by the United States on
the Legislature's constitutional power to regulate state
affairs, public and private, and to promote Utah exports:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, urge Congress to improve
federal-state consultation on international trade, including
improving the availability of data to states necessary to
evaluate the impact of free trade agreements on economic
development within the states and state authority; be it
further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the
members of Utah's Congressional Delegation, the Office of the
United States Trade Representative, the Intergovernmental
Policy Advisory Committee, the U.S. Senate Finance Committee,
the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, the Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives, and the President of the U.S.
Senate.
____
POM-113. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah urging Congress to refrain from instituting
a new federal review, oversight, or preemption of state
health laws, refrain from creating a federal health insurance
exchange or connector, and refrain from creating a federal
health insurance public plan option; to the Committee on
Finance.
[[Page 8330]]
House Joint Resolution No. 11
Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution states, ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people'';
Whereas, the states primarily regulate today's health
insurance market, provide aggressive oversight on all aspects
of this market, and enforce consumer protection as well as
ensure local, responsive presence for consumers;
Whereas, the state-based system of health insurance
regulation has served all interests well;
Whereas, the United States Congress is considering
legislation that may impose restrictions on states' ability
to regulate health plans, including overriding already
adopted state patient protections;
Whereas, Congress is considering legislation that would
mandate the purchase of health care insurance by all
Americans and require those who do not comply to pay a fine,
in effect unfairly forcing Americans to buy health insurance;
Whereas, the creation of a new federal system of regulation
for health insurance would be inefficient, unnecessary, not
cost-effective, and an additional burden on the health care
delivery system;
Whereas, private sector health plans are leaders in
innovations to improve quality, benefits, and customer
service that government-sponsored health plans have been slow
to adopt;
Whereas, Congress is considering legislation that would
create a federal health insurance exchange or connector to
facilitate the purchase of health insurance by individuals
and small employers, including offering a new public plan
option;
Whereas, a federal exchange would create conflicting state
and federal rules, resulting in consumer confusion and
leading to adverse selection;
Whereas, a federal exchange would require substantial
resources to create a new federal entity that duplicates
functions currently performed by states;
Whereas, a federal exchange would undermine states'
oversight role in health insurance and cause a substantial
shift in the regulation of the health insurance market from
the states to the federal government;
Whereas, a federal exchange would undermine state authority
to design programs that reflect local needs;
Whereas, a new public plan would not improve competition,
but would result in an uneven playing field that would shift
costs to the private sector and undermine private plans;
Whereas, a new public health insurance plan would be
subject to constant federal changes; and
Whereas, a new public plan is unnecessary in light of the
private sector's product offerings and innovations: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah urges
the United States Congress to refrain from instituting a new
federal review, oversight, or preemption of state health
insurance laws, refrain from creating a federal health
insurance exchange or connector, and refrain from creating a
federal health insurance public plan option; be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, and to the
members of Utah's congressional delegation.
____
POM-114. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah urging Congress to refuse to enact, and
the President of the United States to refuse to sign, any
legislation that imposes further restrictions on any state's
ability to regulate the payment and delivery of health care,
imposes additional financial burden related to health care on
any state, or limits the ability of consumers and businesses
to create innovative models for higher quality, lower cost
health care; to the Committee on Finance.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 8
Whereas, people's health affects not only their sense of
well being, but their capacity to contribute to their
families, to their employers, and to society at large;
Whereas, the improvement and maintenance of individual
health depends to a significant extent on the widespread
availability of affordable, high quality health care;
Whereas, the widespread availability of affordable, high
quality health care is threatened by long-term runaway
spending in a system that too often delivers suboptimal care;
Whereas, runaway spending and suboptimal care are
attributable to various factors, but are perpetuated to a
large extent by a third-party payer system that fails to
reward individual effort to preserve and improve one's health
and that fails to reward delivery of the most effective care
at the lowest cost;
Whereas, for many years, Utah has been laying the
foundation for genuine long-term health system reform;
Whereas, this foundation includes the creation of the Utah
Health Data Authority in 1990 and the subsequent collection
and publication of hospital charges by facility and adjusted
for risk;
Whereas, this foundation includes the establishment in 1993
of the Utah Health Information Network, a nationally
recognized statewide system for processing health insurance
claims at a small fraction of the cost often charged by other
claims processors;
Whereas, this foundation includes the 2005 requirement that
the Utah Health Data Authority publish reports that compare
health care facilities based on charges, quality, and safety;
Whereas, this foundation includes the 2007-08 development
of an all-payer database that will report payments, as
opposed to charges, for entire episodes of medical care, and
will ultimately allow consumers to choose from among
competing providers of treatments for any particular
condition based on outcomes, price, and other attributes
important to the consumer;
Whereas, this foundation includes the 2008-09 creation of
the first statewide system in the nation for standardized
electronic exchange of clinical health information across
provider systems, including exchange of diagnostic test
results and electronic medical record information;
Whereas, this foundation includes the 2008 creation of the
Health System Reform Task Force, a legislative body that has
engaged consumers, employers, doctors, hospitals, and
insurers in a voluntary, cooperative effort spanning two
years, and involving thousands of hours, to develop a
strategic plan for health system reform;
Whereas, this foundation includes the 2009-10 creation of
payment and delivery reform demonstration projects designed
to align third-party payment structures with provider
practices that result in the highest quality of care for both
chronic and acute conditions;
Whereas, this foundation includes the 2009 creation of the
nation's second-only health insurance exchange, a virtual
marketplace where employees may enroll under a defined
contribution arrangement, select from a range of plans
broader than what an employer traditionally offers, and fund
premiums with contributions from multiple sources;
Whereas, this foundation outlined above is the result of an
iterative process of creation and refinement that has relied
heavily on the input of all major stakeholders in the health
care system and has been established largely on the basis of
cooperation and consensus rather than compulsion;
Whereas, many of the perverse incentives that plague our
health care system are rooted in federal Medicare and
Medicaid payment policies, which exert a disproportionate
influence on the privately funded portions of our health care
system;
Whereas, federal proposals for health system reform
recently considered by Congress emphasize enrollment
expansion rather than cost containment, much like boarding
additional passengers on an already sinking Titanic;
Whereas, those proposals include laudable authorizations
for payment and delivery reform demonstration projects but
otherwise largely lack significant cost containment
provisions;
Whereas, those proposals include many provisions to improve
quality of care but fall short of the systemic changes needed
to fully link outcomes and payment;
Whereas, states have consistently proven themselves
laboratories of policy innovation, in spite of sometimes
stifling federal regulatory restrictions;
Whereas, the best hope for health system reform lies with
individual states, where an iterative process of
experimentation, evaluation, and modification will minimize
the unintended consequences of one-size-fits-all national
policies and will produce results worth replicating; and
Whereas, states are in need of additional financial
resources and flexibility to experiment rather than
additional benefit mandates, Medicaid eligibility mandates,
and rating restrictions, all of which will inevitably drive
up health care spending and costs to states: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, urge Congress to refuse to
enact, and the President of the United States to refuse to
sign, any legislation that imposes further restrictions on
any state's ability to regulate the payment and delivery of
health care, imposes additional financial burden related to
health care on any state, or limits the ability of consumers
and businesses to create innovative models for higher
quality, lower cost health care; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor urge that
Congress pass, and the President sign, legislation that
grants states greater flexibility under federal laws and
regulations related to health care and encourages states to
create health reform demonstration projects with the
potential for replication elsewhere; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor urge that
should Congress pass, and the President sign, legislation
that further restricts states in any manner, the legislation
recognize states' efforts to reform health care by
grandfathering any state laws, regulations, or practices
intended to
[[Page 8331]]
contain costs, improve quality, increase consumerism, or
otherwise implement health system reform concepts; be it
further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
Majority Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of
the United States House of Representatives, the President of
the United States, and the members of Utah's Congressional
delegation.
____
POM-115. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Senate of
the State of Louisiana urging Congress to review the GPO and
WEP Social Security benefit reductions and to consider
eliminating or reducing them by enacting the Social Security
Fairness Act of 2009, the Public Servant Retirement
Protection Act of 2009, the Windfall Elimination Provision
Relief Act of 2009, or a similar instrument; to the Committee
on Finance.
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 6
Whereas, the Congress of the United States has enacted both
the Government Pension Offset (GPO), reducing the spousal and
survivor Social Security benefit, and the Windfall
Elimination Provision (WEP), reducing the earned Social
Security benefit for any person who also receives a public
pension benefit; and
Whereas, the intent of Congress in enacting the GPO and the
WEP provisions was to address concerns that a public employee
who had worked primarily in federal, state, or local
government employment might receive a public pension in
addition to the same Social Security benefit as a person who
had worked only in employment covered by Social Security
throughout his career; and
Whereas, the purpose of Congress in enacting these
reduction provisions was to provide a disincentive for public
employees to receive two pensions; and
Whereas, the GPO negatively affects a spouse or survivor
receiving a federal, state, or local government retirement or
pension benefit who would also be entitled to a Social
Security benefit earned by a spouse; and
Whereas, the GPO formula reduces the spousal or survivor
Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the amount of the
federal, state, or local government retirement or pension
benefit received by the spouse or survivor, in many cases
completely eliminating the Social Security benefit; and
Whereas, nine out of ten public employees affected by the
GPO lose their entire spousal benefits, even though their
spouses paid Social Security taxes for many years; and
Whereas, the GPO often reduces spousal benefits so
significantly it can make the difference between self-
sufficiency and poverty; and
Whereas, the GPO has a harsh effect on thousands of
citizens and undermines the original purpose of the Social
Security dependent/survivor benefit; and
Whereas, the GPO negatively impacts approximately 21,900
Louisianans; and
Whereas, the WEP applies to those persons who have earned
federal, state, or local government retirement or pension
benefits, in addition to working in employment covered under
Social Security and paying into the Social Security system;
and
Whereas, the WEP reduces the earned Social Security benefit
using an averaged indexed monthly earnings formula and may
reduce Social Security benefits for affected persons by as
much as one-half of the retirement benefit earned as a public
servant in employment not covered under Social Security; and
Whereas, the WEP causes hard-working individuals to lose a
significant portion of the social security benefits that they
earn themselves; and
Whereas, the WEP negatively impacts approximately 18,300
Louisianans; and
Whereas, because of these calculation characteristics, the
GPO and the WEP have a disproportionately negative effect on
employees working in lower-wage government jobs, like
policemen, firefighters, teachers, and state employees; and
Whereas, many workers rely on Social Security
Administration Annual Statements that fail to take into
account the GPO and WEP when projecting benefits; and
Whereas, because the Social Security benefit statements do
not calculate the GPO and the WEP, many public employees in
Louisiana are unaware that their expected Social Security
benefits shown on such statements will be significantly lower
or nonexistent due to the service in public employment; and
Whereas, these provisions also have a greater adverse
effect on women than on men because of the gender differences
in salary that continue to plague our nation and the longer
life expectancy of women; and
Whereas, Louisiana is making every effort to improve the
quality of life of its citizens and to encourage them to live
here lifelong, yet the current GPO and WEP provisions
compromise that quality of life; and
Whereas, retired individuals negatively affected by GPO and
WEP have significantly less money to support their basic
needs and sometimes have to turn to government assistance
programs; and
Whereas, the GPO and the WEP penalize individuals who have
dedicated their lives to public service by taking away
benefits they have earned; and
Whereas, our nation should respect, not penalize, public
service; and
Whereas, the number of people affected by GPO and WEP is
growing every day as more and more people reach retirement
age; and
Whereas, the GPO and WEP are established in federal law and
repeal of the GPO and the WEP can only be enacted by the
United States Congress: Now therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby
memorialize the Congress of the United States to review the
GPO and the WEP Social Security benefit reductions and to
consider eliminating or reducing them by enacting the Social
Security Fairness Act of 2009 (H.R. 235 or S. 484), the
Public Servant Retirement Protection Act of 2009 (H.R. 1221,
S. 490), the Windfall Elimination Provision Relief Act of
2009 (H.R. 2145), or a similar instrument; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution shall be
transmitted to the secretary of the United States Senate and
the clerk of the United States House of Representatives and
to each member of the Louisiana delegation to the United
States Congress.
____
POM-116. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of Utah strongly urging the
President to submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the
United States Senate and the United States Senate to promptly
give its advice and consent for ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
House Resolution No. 4
Whereas, a global halt to nuclear weapons testing has been
a bipartisan objective of the United States since the late
1950s when President Dwight D. Eisenhower sought a
comprehensive nuclear test ban;
Whereas, the United States has not conducted a nuclear
weapons test since the United States suspended testing and
joined with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in a
nuclear weapons testing moratorium in September 1992;
Whereas, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was
opened for signature on September 24, 1996, and President
Bill Clinton was the first head of state to sign the Treaty;
Whereas, no nuclear tests have been conducted since that
time by the United States, Russia, or China;
Whereas, as of June 2009, 180 states have signed the CTBT
and 148 have ratified it;
Whereas, ratification of the CTBT would signal a strong
commitment by the United States to fulfill its obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, prompt
ratification by other states which is necessary for the
Treaty to enter into force, reinforce the global taboo
against nuclear weapons testing, and set an example for the
rest of the world;
Whereas, a global verifiable ban on nuclear weapons testing
would prevent potential nuclear powers from proof testing
smaller nuclear bombs that can be delivered on ballistic
missiles;
Whereas, United States ratification of the CTBT would be a
significant step towards preventing the spread of nuclear
weapons, reducing nuclear weapons arsenals worldwide, and
building confidence among nations that abolition of nuclear
weapons can someday be achieved;
Whereas, after 1,030 nuclear test explosions, further
nuclear weapons testing is not necessary to maintain the
integrity, effectiveness, and deterrence value of the
existing United States nuclear weapons stockpile, nor is
there any new military requirement for new types of United
States nuclear warheads;
Whereas, the United States government acknowledges that 433
of 824 United States underground tests have vented radiation
to the atmosphere;
Whereas, as part of its recognition of the 50th anniversary
of nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site, in the
2001 General Session, the 54th Legislature of the state of
Utah expressed, ``the fervent desire and commitment to assure
that such a legacy will never be repeated'';
Whereas, resumption of United States nuclear weapons
testing would place persons downwind of the Nevada test
location at risk of exposure to radioactive emissions from
possible venting;
Whereas, citizens of Utah living downwind of the Nevada
Test Site have already suffered significant health effects as
a result of nuclear weapons testing;
Whereas, in the best interests of their children and
grandchildren, Utah's remaining ``downwinders'' continue to
fight the resumption of any nuclear weapons testing;
Whereas, past nuclear weapons testing at the Nevada Test
Site has devastated the health and livelihoods of thousands
of Utahns;
Whereas, in 2005, the 58th Legislature of the state of Utah
voted in support of a Concurrent Resolution Opposing Nuclear
Testing, articulating that, ``The state of Utah has an
obligation to its citizens, especially those who have
suffered so much, to do all in its power to ensure that the
lingering wounds from nuclear testing are not reopened to
afflict both current and future generations'';
Whereas, the Legislature of the state of Utah supports a
strong military defense, but atomic weapons tests are not a
necessary component of that defense;
[[Page 8332]]
Whereas, United States' citizens must not be subjected to
the hazards of future nuclear weapons tests;
Whereas, the CTBT Organization effectively monitors
compliance with the CTBT through an International Monitoring
System, consisting of 337 stations using state-of-the-art
seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound and radionuclide
technologies and capable of detecting and identifying a
nuclear weapons test explosion anywhere in the world within
hours;
Whereas, the CTBT is effectively verifiable and would
improve the United States' ability to detect, deter, and
respond to potential surreptitious nuclear weapons testing by
other nations;
Whereas, Article 9 of the CTBT permits withdrawal by the
United States in case extraordinary future developments,
including the need to respond to a violation by another
nation, were to jeopardize our supreme national interests;
Whereas, independent expert assessments commissioned by the
National Nuclear Security Administration have concluded that
measures under the Stockpile Stewardship Program and Life
Extension Program can support certification of today's
nuclear warheads as safe, secure, and reliable for decades
without the need to resort to underground nuclear weapons
testing and
Whereas, the CTBT would increase international safety and
security and is in the best interests of Utah, the United
States, and the world: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah strongly urges the President of the United States to
submit the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to the United States
Senate; be it further
Resolved, That the House of Representatives of the state of
Utah strongly urges the United States Senate to promptly give
its advice and consent for ratification of the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty; be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the
United States Senate, and to Utah Senators Orrin Hatch and
Bob Bennett.
____
POM-117. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Utah reaffirming friendship with the people
of Taiwan and urging the Obama Administration to support
Taiwan's meaningful participation in the United Nations
specialized agencies, programs, and conventions; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
House Concurrent Resolution No. 11
Whereas, July 23, 2010, will mark the 30th anniversary of a
sister state relationship between Utah and Taiwan;
Whereas, for the past 30 years, four sister county and
sister city relationships with Taiwan have also been
strengthened, resulting in better mutual understanding of the
economic, social, and cultural heritages of Utah and Taiwan;
Whereas, in 2008, Taiwan was Utah's third largest export
market;
Whereas, Utah exports to Taiwan have reached $727,000,000,
an increase of over 244% since 2007;
Whereas, Utah companies still have substantial
opportunities to expand their businesses and cooperation with
Taiwan;
Whereas, Utah has already attracted investment from several
Taiwanese companies, and there is significant potential for
Taiwanese enterprises to further boost investment and create
jobs in Utah;
Whereas, in May 2009, the World Health Organization invited
Taiwan to attend the 62nd World Health Assembly as an
observer;
Whereas, this development raises the possibility for Taiwan
to be meaningfully involved in other United Nations
specialized agencies, programs, and conventions;
Whereas, Taiwan is a key air transport hub in the Asia-
Pacific region, with approximately 2,600 weekly flights to
and from neighboring countries;
Whereas, the Taipei Flight Information Region under
Taiwan's jurisdiction currently serves 12 international and
four domestic routes and has 1,350,000 controlled flights
passing through every year;
Whereas, the 2008 statistics from Airports Council
International ranked Taiwan's Taoyuan International Airport
as the world's 11th largest airport by international cargo
volume, and 19th in terms of international passengers
services; and
Whereas, given Taiwan's prominent role in regional air
control and transport services, it would be beneficial for
Taiwan to have meaningful participation in the International
Civil Aviation Organization, in order to safeguard the
traveling of passengers from home and abroad: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah, the
Governor concurring therein, reaffirm their friendship with
the people of Taiwan and urge the Obama Administration to
support Taiwan's meaningful participation in United Nations
specialized agencies, programs, and conventions; be it
further
Resolved, That the Legislature and the Governor express
support for a strong and deepening relationship between Utah
and Taiwan; be it further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States and to the government of
Taiwan.
____
POM-118. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah expressing opposition to the establishment
of a National Commission on State Workers' Compensation Laws;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
House Joint Resolution No. 10
Whereas, state workers' compensation laws should provide an
injured worker with all reasonable and necessary medical
treatment that promotes expeditious healing, a return to
work, a fair level of income benefits during disability, and
protection against lost wages;
Whereas, state workers' compensation laws should assure
that employees receive just compensation at a cost affordable
to employers;
Whereas, the state-based workers' compensation system has
proven over the near-century of its existence to be an
effective means of protecting injured workers against the
costs of industrial injury, while protecting employers
against the unlimited and unpredictable costs of workplace
liability;
Whereas, a state-based benefit delivery system reflects the
nature and cost of employment in individual states and is an
exemplar of the federal system, in which power is dispersed
among the states, facilitating timely response and the
ability to tailor remedies to state-specific conditions;
Whereas, the imposition of federal oversight and
development of federal mandates on the state workers'
compensation system should be opposed, including any proposed
legislation that would unnecessarily increase the federal
bureaucracy and create federal regulation in an area where
states are currently providing adequate oversight;
Whereas, federal requirements on the state-based system
would create unnecessary imbalances and unintended
consequences for a system that has been operating effectively
for decades;
Whereas, a state workers' compensation system, its
administration, legal precedents, funding, and fiscal
accountability, which is intricately linked to each state's
economy, is a much more effective approach m dealing with
workers' compensation issues;
Whereas, the state-based system provides the ability to
experiment creatively and borrow from experiences in other
states without the burden of a rigid, nationwide, one-size-
fits-all federal program that is slow to change and
administratively cumbersome;
Whereas, the rights of states and their respective
legislatures and stakeholders to review the performance of
state-based workers' compensation systems should be
preserved;
Whereas, it is not the province of Congress to interfere
with the state administration of workers' compensation: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
expresses strong support for the current state-based workers'
compensation system and opposes any proposed federal
legislation that would lead to broadening the federal role in
that system; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah opposes
H.R. 635, introduced in the 111th United States Congress,
that would establish a National Commission on State Workers'
Compensation Laws, because the Commission's evaluation is
intended, and will assuredly lead, to recommendations that
would erode the independence of the state-based workers'
compensation benefit delivery system, would seek to impose
federal benefit delivery system rules, which Congress would
be expected to approve, that inherently interfere with state
benefit systems, would increase system costs nationwide, and
would frustrate efforts of the states to contain costs; be it
further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the
President of the United States, the Majority Leader of the
United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House
of Representatives, and to the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____
POM-119. A joint resolution adopted by the Legislature of
the State of Utah urging the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs to prioritize Utah for the construction of
another veterans' nursing home; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
House Joint Resolution No. 9
Whereas, there is greet need for the construction of an
additional nursing home for veterans in Utah;
Whereas, Utah is still significantly below the nation's
average for the total number of needed veterans' nursing
homes statewide;
Whereas, due to the heavy numbers of veterans in the state
of Utah, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs
should prioritize Utah for the construction of an additional
veterans' nursing home;
Whereas, Utah should also be prioritized based on the
absolute promise of the United States Department of Veterans
Affairs to reimburse the state for the Veterans' Nursing Home
in Ogden;
Whereas, any and all efforts by the state of Utah to
continue to help veterans acquire properties and build a home
in central and southern Utah should be encouraged;
Whereas, the citizens of Utah and the citizens of the
United States owe a debt to our veterans of the past,
present, and future; and
Whereas, constructing an additional veterans' nursing home
will demonstrate a
[[Page 8333]]
measure of gratitude for their service: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
strongly encourages the United States Department of Veterans
Affairs to prioritize Utah for the construction of another
veteran' nursing home; be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of the state of Utah
encourages any and all efforts by the state of Utah to
continue helping veterans acquire properties and build a
veterans' nursing home in central and southern Utah; be it
further
Resolved, That copies of this resolution be sent to the
United States Department of Veterans Affairs, the Utah
Department of Veteran's Affairs, and to the members of Utah's
congressional delegation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. AKAKA, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
without amendment:
S. 3378. An original bill to authorize health care for
individuals exposed to environmental hazards at Camp Lejeune
and the Atsugi Naval Air Facility, to establish an advisory
board to examine exposures to environmental hazards during
military service, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 111-189).
By Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 1214. A bill to conserve fish and aquatic communities in
the United States through partnerships that foster fish
habitat conservation, to improve the quality of life for the
people of the United States, and for other purposes (Rept.
No. 111-190).
By Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Appropriations:
Special Report entitled ``Further Revised Budget Allocation
to Subcommittees of Budget Totals'' (Rept. No. 111-191).
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, without amendment:
S. 2868. A bill to provide increased access to the General
Services Administration's Schedules Program by the American
Red Cross and State and local governments (Rept. No. 111-
192).
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 3378. An original bill to authorize health care for
individuals exposed to environmental hazards at Camp Lejeune
and the Atsugi Naval Air Facility, to establish an advisory
board to examine exposures to environmental hazards during
military service, and for other purposes; from the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs; placed on the calendar.
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 3379. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon
pollution and create clean energy jobs; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 3380. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide for the treatment of securities of a controlled
corporation exchanged for assets in certain reorganizations;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Tester):
S. 3381. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to modify
certain definitions of the term ``renewable biomass'', and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Udall of Colorado):
S. Res. 532. A resolution recognizing Expo 2010 Shanghai
China and the USA Pavilion at the Expo; to the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs.
Lincoln, Mr. Levin, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Begich, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bayh,
Mr. Franken, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Gillibrand,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Specter, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. Res. 533. A resolution recognizing National Foster Care
Month as an opportunity to raise awareness about the
challenges of children in the foster care system and
encouraging Congress to implement policy to improve the lives
of children in the foster care system; considered and agreed
to.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 266
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 266, a bill to
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce the coverage gap
in prescription drug coverage under part D of such title based on
savings to the Medicare program resulting from the negotiation of
prescription drug prices.
S. 311
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 311, a bill to prohibit the
application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign
nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of
assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
S. 504
At the request of Mr. Roberts, the names of the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman),
the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Burris), the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from North Dakota
(Mr. Conrad), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the
Senator from Florida (Mr. LeMieux), the Senator from Indiana (Mr.
Lugar), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), the Senator
from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), the Senator from Maine (Ms. Snowe), the
Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) were added as
cosponsors of S. 504, a bill to redesignate the Department of the Navy
as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.
S. 632
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 632, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that the payment of the
manufacturers' excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.
S. 634
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) was added as a cosponsor of S. 634, a bill to
amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to improve
standards for physical education.
S. 831
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 831, a bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to include service after September 11,
2001, as service qualifying for the determination of a reduced
eligibility age for receipt of non--regular service retired pay.
S. 999
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 999, a bill to increase the
number of well--trained mental health service professionals (including
those based in schools) providing clinical mental health care to
children and adolescents, and for other purposes.
S. 1055
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1055, a bill to grant the
congressional gold medal, collectively, to the 100th Infantry Battalion
and the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, United States Army, in
recognition of their dedicated service during World War II.
S. 1239
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1239, a bill to
amend section 340B of the Public Health Service Act to revise and
expand the drug discount program under that section to improve the
provision of discounts on drug purchases for certain safety net
providers.
S. 2736
At the request of Mr. Franken, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey
[[Page 8334]]
(Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2736, a bill to reduce
the rape kit backlog and for other purposes.
S. 2749
At the request of Mrs. Gillibrand, the name of the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2749, a bill to
amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to improve
access to nutritious meals for young children in child care.
S. 3201
At the request of Mr. Udall of Colorado, the name of the Senator from
Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3201, a bill to amend
title 10, United States Code, to extend TRICARE coverage to certain
dependents under the age of 26.
S. 3206
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3206, a bill to establish an
Education Jobs Fund.
S. 3213
At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Franken) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3213, a bill to ensure
that amounts credited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund are used for
harbor maintenance.
S. 3234
At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3234, a bill to improve
employment, training, and placement services furnished to veterans,
especially those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom, and for other purposes.
S. 3266
At the request of Mr. Bennet, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) were added
as cosponsors of S. 3266, a bill to ensure the availability of loan
guarantees for rural homeowners.
S. 3311
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3311, a bill to improve and enhance the capabilities
of the Department of Defense to prevent and respond to sexual assault
in the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
S. 3327
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, the name of the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. Johanns) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3327, a bill to
add joining a foreign terrorist organization or engaging in or
supporting hostilities against the United States or its allies to the
list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their
nationality.
S. 3329
At the request of Mr. Lautenberg, the name of the Senator from
Maryland (Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3329, a bill to
provide triple credits for renewable energy on brownfields, and for
other purposes.
S. 3350
At the request of Mr. Bingaman, the name of the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. Grassley) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3350, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently modify the limitations on
deduction of interest by financial institutions which hold tax--exempt
bonds, and for other purposes.
S. 3372
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) were added
as cosponsors of S. 3372, a bill to modify the date on which the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable
States may require permits for discharges from certain vessels.
S. 3377
At the request of Mr. Burr, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Burris) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3377, a bill to amend title
38, United States Code, to improve the multifamily transitional housing
loan program of the Department of Veterans Affairs by requiring the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue loans for the construction of,
rehabilitation of, or acquisition of land for multifamily transitional
housing projects instead of guaranteeing loans for such purposes, and
for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3746
At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Begich) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3746 proposed to
S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial stability of the
United States by improving accountability and transparency in the
financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American
taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3883
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. Bond) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3883 proposed to
S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial stability of the
United States by improving accountability and transparency in the
financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American
taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3887
At the request of Mr. Carper, the names of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) and the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 3887 intended to be proposed to S. 3217, an
original bill to promote the financial stability of the United States
by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system,
to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending
bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services
practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3919
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3919
intended to be proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the
financial stability of the United States by improving accountability
and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'',
to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect
consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3920
At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3920 intended
to be proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial
stability of the United States by improving accountability and
transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to
protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers
from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3931
At the request of Mr. Merkley, the name of the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
3931 intended to be proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote
the financial stability of the United States by improving
accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too
big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to
protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3944
At the request of Mr. Corker, the name of the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. Bayh) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3944 intended to
be proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial
stability of the United States by improving accountability and
transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to
protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers
from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3949
At the request of Mr. Carper, the names of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 3949 intended to be proposed to S. 3217, an
[[Page 8335]]
original bill to promote the financial stability of the United States
by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system,
to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending
bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services
practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 3986
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the names of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 3986 proposed to S. 3217, an original bill
to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving
accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too
big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to
protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4006
At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4006 intended
to be proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial
stability of the United States by improving accountability and
transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to
protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers
from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4008
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4008 intended to be
proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial
stability of the United States by improving accountability and
transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to
protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers
from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4016
At the request of Mr. Udall of Colorado, the names of the Senator
from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand) and
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 4016 proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the
financial stability of the United States by improving accountability
and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'',
to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect
consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4018
At the request of Mr. Enzi, the name of the Senator from Alabama (Mr.
Shelby) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4018 intended to be
proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial
stability of the United States by improving accountability and
transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to
protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers
from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 4036
At the request of Mr. Bennett, the name of the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. Ensign) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4036 intended to
be proposed to S. 3217, an original bill to promote the financial
stability of the United States by improving accountability and
transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to
protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers
from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Tester):
S. 3381. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to modify certain
definitions of the term ``renewable biomass'', and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with
my colleagues Senator Crapo and Senator Tester that will establish a
single definition of renewable biomass for the purposes of the
Renewable Fuel Standard, RFS, a future Renewable Electricity Standard,
RES, and climate change legislation.
When I travel back to my hometown of Helena, MT, trees that line the
roads there are turning red. Mountain pine beetles are killing
Montana's trees at a terrible rate. Our legendary harsh winters once
were enough to keep the beetles at bay, but no longer. Global warming
has literally hit home for me. These thousands of acres of red, dead
trees are virtually worthless under current law, serving as little more
than kindling for wildfires.
This bill can help add value to this biomass while also creating a
source of renewable domestic energy. It will establish a simple, broad,
single definition for renewable biomass that is consistent with current
law--the 2008 Farm Bill.
Some say this definition is too broad and fails to protect
ecologically sensitive areas. In fact, there are many laws that dictate
Federal forest management, and my amendment does nothing to change
these laws. All projects that would create biomass due to my amendment
would have to comply with the National Forest Management Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and
others.
All projects on federal forests must go through NEPA where the land
management agency must study potential environmental impacts and
mitigate those impacts. The public has many opportunities to comment
and shape these projects and nothing in my amendment changes these
safeguards. Further, my amendment would do nothing to change designated
Wilderness areas or Wilderness Study Areas or otherwise weaken the
Wilderness Act.
Right now our national forests are growing 20 billion board feet per
year. Eight billion board feet die every year and only two million
board feet are removed. This has resulted in overstocked, unhealthy
forests. We can either restore forest health, produce renewable energy
and local high-wage jobs, or we can allow nature to impose its own will
through wildfire and infestation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward
to working with them to enact this bill this year.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 532--RECOGNIZING EXPO 2010 SHANGHAI CHINA AND THE USA
PAVILION AT THE EXPO
Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Udall of Colorado)
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee
on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 532
Whereas Expo 2010 Shanghai China (Expo 2010) will take
place May 1 through October 31, 2010 with the theme ``Better
City, Better Life'';
Whereas Expo 2010 will be the largest such event in 150
years of Expo history with an estimated 70,000,000 visitors
expected to attend, many of them from within China;
Whereas approximately 192 countries and 52 international
organizations will be represented at Expo 2010;
Whereas Expo 2010 is the first world exposition hosted by
China, representing an opportunity for the world to celebrate
China's progress over the past 30 years and recognize the
aspirations of the people of China to continue the process of
``reform and opening up'' launched by Chinese Premier Deng
Xiao-ping in 1979;
Whereas Shanghai, the host city of Expo 2010, is the
dynamic commercial and financial capital of China, noted in
China as a cradle of innovation and openness;
Whereas Expo 2010 represents an unprecedented opportunity
for the United States to promote understanding of American
society, culture, ideas, and values with millions of Chinese
citizens visiting the USA Pavilion;
Whereas United States participation in Expo 2010
demonstrates the United States commitment to a forward-
looking, positive relationship with China;
Whereas the USA Pavilion theme ``Rising to the Challenge''
will entertain and educate audiences on the American spirit
of innovation and community-building and celebrate the
American ideals of collaboration, freedom, diversity,
openness, optimism, achievement, and opportunity;
[[Page 8336]]
Whereas Expo 2010 will emphasize sound environmental
conservation practices, including a solar energy system that
will produce 5 megawatts of power and large rooftop canopies
to collect rainwater to be purified for drinking;
Whereas support for the USA Pavilion's construction,
staffing, operation, and thematic presentations was provided
completely by private-sector and other partners consistent
with United States law; and
Whereas many of the USA Pavilion's sponsoring partners are
also playing an active role in the beneficial development of
China's economy and society: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the Senate congratulates the people of China for
hosting Expo 2010 and wishes them every success with this
endeavor;
(2) it is the sense of the Senate that Expo 2010
constitutes an important step along the over 30-year path of
reform and opening up in China, and serves as a significant
reminder of what can be accomplished if China continues along
this path;
(3) the Senate calls on the sponsors and operators of the
USA Pavilion to make maximum use of this unique opportunity
to showcase the very best attributes that the United States
has to offer and to strengthen the cultural, scientific,
educational, people-to-people, trade, and investment links
between the people of the United States and the people of
China; and
(4) the Senate acknowledges the more than 60 private-sector
and other sponsor partners of the USA Pavilion for their
invaluable contributions to the success of this important
project and for providing a positive example of public-
private partnerships.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 533--RECOGNIZING NATIONAL FOSTER CARE MONTH AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE AWARENESS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES OF CHILDREN IN THE
FOSTER CARE SYSTEM AND ENCOURAGING CONGRESS TO IMPLEMENT POLICY TO
IMPROVE THE LIVES OF CHILDREN IN THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM
Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Cardin, Mr. Begich, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Bayh, Mr. Franken, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Nelson
of Nebraska, Mr. Casey, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Specter, Mr. Cochran, and Mr.
Lautenberg) submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 533
Whereas all children deserve a safe, loving, and permanent
home;
Whereas approximately 500,000 children in the United States
live in foster care each year;
Whereas children enter the foster care system for a variety
of reasons, including inadequate care, abuse, or neglect by a
parent or guardian;
Whereas the major factors that contribute to the placement
of a child in the foster care system include substance abuse,
mental illness, poverty, and a lack of education of a parent
or guardian of the child;
Whereas a child entering the foster care system must
confront the widespread misperception that children in foster
care are disruptive, unruly, and dangerous, even though
placement in the foster care system is based on the actions
of a parent or guardian, not the child;
Whereas States and communities should be provided with the
resources to invest in preventative and reunification
services and post-permanency programs to ensure that more
children in the foster care system are provided safe, loving,
permanent placements;
Whereas the foster care system is intended to be a
temporary solution, yet children remain in the foster care
system for an average of 3 years;
Whereas children of color are disproportionately
represented in the foster care system and are less likely to
be reunited with their biological families;
Whereas the average child in the foster care system--
(1) is 10 years old; and
(2) will be placed in 3 different homes, leading to
disruptive transfers to new schools, separation from
siblings, and unfamiliar surroundings;
Whereas most children ``age out'' of the foster care system
at the age of 18;
Whereas the number of children who enter the foster care
system each year has declined over the decade preceding the
date of the agreement to this resolution, but the number of
children who ``age out'' of the foster care system without
placement with a permanent family has increased
substantially, rising from 20,000 children in 2002 to 29,000
children in 2008;
Whereas children who ``age out'' of the foster care system
lack the security or support of a biological or adoptive
family and frequently struggle to secure affordable housing,
obtain health insurance, pursue higher education, and acquire
adequate employment;
Whereas, of the children who have ``aged out'' of the
foster care system--
(1) 25 percent have been homeless;
(2) 51 percent have been unemployed for significant stretch
of time, and
(3) only 2 percent have obtained a bachelor's degree or
higher;
Whereas, by age 19, approximately 50 percent of young women
who have been in the foster care system have been pregnant,
compared to only 20 percent of young women who have been not
in the foster care system;
Whereas research reveals that children born to teen parents
are exposed to serious and high risks;
Whereas National Foster Care Month is an opportunity to
raise awareness about the special needs of children in the
foster care system and to recognize the important role that
foster parents, social workers, and advocates have in the
lives of children in foster care throughout the United
States;
Whereas the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351; 122 Stat. 3949)
provides for new investments and services to improve the
outcomes of children and families in the foster care system;
and
Whereas much remains to be done to ensure that all children
have a safe, loving, nurturing, and permanent family,
regardless of age or special needs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes National Foster Care Month as an opportunity
to raise awareness about the challenges of children in the
foster care system;
(2) encourages Congress to implement policy to improve the
lives of children in the foster care system;
(3) supports the designation of a ``National Foster Care
Month'';
(4) acknowledges the needs of the children in the foster
care system;
(5) honors the commitment and dedication of those
individuals who work tirelessly to provide assistance and
services to children in the foster care system; and
(6) recognizes the need to continue working to improve the
outcomes of all children in the foster care system through
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
and other programs designed to help children in the foster
care system--
(A) reunite with their biological parents; or
(B) if the children cannot be reunited with their
biological parents, find permanent, safe, and loving homes.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 4048. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Levin, Ms.
Cantwell, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs. Shaheen) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr.
Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the
bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability of the
United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect
the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect
consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4049. Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Casey) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739
proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs.
Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, supra; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 4050. Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Schumer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Johnson, and Mr.
Whitehouse) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for
himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, supra.
SA 4051. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4052. Mr. CORKER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4053. Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Brown of Ohio)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and
Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 4054. Mr. CORKER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4055. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mrs. Hagan, and Mr.
Cornyn) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for
himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, supra; which
was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4056. Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Warner , Mr.
Brown of Massachusetts, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Begich, Mrs.
Murray,
[[Page 8337]]
Mr. Corker, Mr. Tester, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Reid) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for
himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, supra.
SA 4057. Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Corker) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739
proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs.
Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, supra; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 4058. Mr. SHELBY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4059. Mr. REID (for Mrs. Lincoln (for herself, Mr.
Chambliss, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Brown of Ohio)) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739
proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs.
Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, supra; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 4060. Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr.
Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the
bill S. 3217, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4061. Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted an amendment intended to
be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for
Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4062. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr.
Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 4048. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Levin, Ms. Cantwell, and
Ms. Snowe) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment
SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs.
Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability of
the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the
financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American
taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 699, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 704, line 13, and insert the following:
``(A) Registration.--The Commission may adopt rules and
regulations requiring registration with the Commission for a
foreign board of trade that provides the members of the
foreign board of trade or other participants located in the
United States with direct access to the electronic trading
and order matching system of the foreign board of trade,
including rules and regulations prescribing procedures and
requirements applicable to the registration of such foreign
boards of trade. For purposes of this paragraph, `direct
access' refers to an explicit grant of authority by a foreign
board of trade to an identified member or other participant
located in the United States to enter trades directly into
the trade matching system of the foreign board of trade.
``(B) Linked contracts.--It shall be unlawful for a foreign
board of trade to provide to the members of the foreign board
of trade or other participants located in the United States
direct access to the electronic trading and order-matching
system of the foreign board of trade with respect to an
agreement, contract, or transaction that settles against any
price (including the daily or final settlement price) of 1 or
more contracts listed for trading on a registered entity,
unless the Commission determines that--
``(i) the foreign board of trade makes public daily trading
information regarding the agreement, contract, or transaction
that is comparable to the daily trading information published
by the registered entity for the 1 or more contracts against
which the agreement, contract, or transaction traded on the
foreign board of trade settles; and
``(ii) the foreign board of trade (or the foreign futures
authority that oversees the foreign board of trade)--
``(I) adopts position limits (including related hedge
exemption provisions) for the agreement, contract, or
transaction that are comparable to the position limits
(including related hedge exemption provisions) adopted by the
registered entity for the 1 or more contracts against which
the agreement, contract, or transaction traded on the foreign
board of trade settles;
``(II) has the authority to require or direct market
participants to limit, reduce, or liquidate any position the
foreign board of trade (or the foreign futures authority that
oversees the foreign board of trade) determines to be
necessary to prevent or reduce the threat of price
manipulation, excessive speculation as described in section
4a, price distortion, or disruption of delivery or the cash
settlement process;
``(III) agrees to promptly notify the Commission, with
regard to the agreement, contract, or transaction that
settles against any price (including the daily or final
settlement price) of 1 or more contracts listed for trading
on a registered entity, of any change regarding--
``(aa) the information that the foreign board of trade will
make publicly available;
``(bb) the position limits that the foreign board of trade
or foreign futures authority will adopt and enforce;
``(cc) the position reductions required to prevent
manipulation, excessive speculation as described in section
4a, price distortion, or disruption of delivery or the cash
settlement process; and
``(dd) any other area of interest expressed by the
Commission to the foreign board of trade or foreign futures
authority;
``(IV) provides information to the Commission regarding
large trader positions in the agreement, contract, or
transaction that is comparable to the large trader position
information collected by the Commission for the 1 or more
contracts against which the agreement, contract, or
transaction traded on the foreign board of trade settles; and
``(V) provides the Commission such information as is
necessary to publish reports on aggregate trader positions
for the agreement, contract, or transaction traded on the
foreign board of trade that are comparable to such reports on
aggregate trader positions for the 1 or more contracts
against which the agreement, contract, or transaction traded
on the foreign board of trade settles.
``(C) Existing foreign boards of trade.--Subparagraphs (A)
and (B) shall not be effective with respect to any foreign
board of trade to which, prior to the date of enactment of
this paragraph, the Commission granted direct access
permission until the date that is 180 days after that date of
enactment.''.
(b) Liability of Registered Persons Trading on a Foreign
Board of Trade.--Section 4 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 6) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``or by subsection (e)'' after ``Unless
exempted by the Commission pursuant to subsection (c)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Liability of Registered Persons Trading on a Foreign
Board of Trade.--A person registered with the Commission, or
exempt from registration by the Commission, under this Act
may not be found to have violated subsection (a) with respect
to a transaction in, or in connection with, a contract of
sale of a commodity for future delivery if the person has
reason to believe that the transaction and the contract is
made on or subject to the rules of a foreign board of trade
that has complied with subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
subsection (b)(1).''.
______
SA 4049. Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Casey) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr.
Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217,
to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving
accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too
big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to
protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 656, strike line 20 and all that follows
through page 657, line 12, and insert the following:
``(2) Special rule; duty to protected customers.--
``(A) Definition of protected customer.--In this paragraph,
the term `protected customer' means any entity that is--
``(i) a Federal agency;
``(ii) a State, State agency, city, county, municipality,
or other political subdivision of a State;
``(iii) any employee benefit plan, as defined in section 3
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1002);
``(iv) any governmental plan, as defined in section 3 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1002); or
``(v) any endowment that is an organization described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) Prohibition.--
``(i) In general.--It shall be unlawful for a swap dealer
that provides advice regarding, offers to enter into, or
enters into, a swap with a protected customer--
``(I) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud
any protected customer or prospective protected customer;
``(II) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of
business that operates as a fraud or deceit on any protected
customer or prospective protected customer;
``(III) if the swap dealer acts as a principal for the
account of the swap dealer, to knowingly sell any swap to, or
purchase any swap from, a protected customer, or if the swap
[[Page 8338]]
dealer acts as a broker for a person other than the protected
customer, to knowingly effect any sale or purchase of any
swap for the account of the protected customer, without--
``(aa) before the completion of the transaction, disclosing
to the protected customer in writing the capacity in which
the swap dealer is acting; and
``(bb) obtaining the consent of the protected customer in
writing with respect to the transaction; and
``(IV) to engage in any act, practice, or course of
business that is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.
``(ii) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this subparagraph, the Commission shall issue
rules and promulgate regulations to prescribe requirements
that are reasonably designed to prevent acts, practices, and
courses of business that are fraudulent, deceptive, or
manipulative.
``(C) Requirements.--
``(i) In general.--A swap dealer that recommends a swap
with a protected customer shall comply with clauses (ii) and
(iii).
``(ii) Reasonable grounds.--In recommending to a protected
customer the purchase, sale, or exchange of any swap, a swap
dealer shall have reasonable grounds for believing that the
recommendation is in the best interests of the protected
customer.
``(iii) Reasonable efforts.--Before the execution of a
transaction recommended to a protected customer under clause
(ii), a swap dealer shall make reasonable efforts to obtain
such information as is necessary to determine whether the
transaction is in the best interests of the protected
customer, including--
``(I) information relating to--
``(aa) the financial status of the protected customer;
``(bb) the tax status of the protected customer; and
``(cc) the stated investment objectives of the protected
customer; and
``(II) such other information that--
``(aa) is used or considered to be reasonable by the swap
dealer in making recommendations to the protected customer;
and
``(bb) the Commission may prescribe by rule or regulation.
``(iv) Business conduct requirements.--A swap dealer shall
satisfy each business conduct requirement described in
paragraph (3).
``(D) Written representations.--
``(i) In general.--Before entering into a swap with a
protected customer, a swap dealer shall receive in writing a
representation from the protected customer confirming that
the swap transaction has been expressly authorized--
``(I) by an advisor that is independent of the swap dealer;
and
``(II) in the case of an employee benefit plan subject to
the fiduciary duty requirements under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), by a
representative independent of the swap dealer that is a
fiduciary, as defined in section 3 of that Act (29 U.S.C.
1002).
``(ii) Regulations.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the
Commission shall issue rules or promulgate regulations to
provide guidelines to determine qualifications for advisors
that are authorized to provide advice under clause (i)(I).
Beginning on page 863, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 864, line 16, and insert the following:
``(2) Special rule; duty to protected customers.--
``(A) Definition of protected customer.--In this paragraph,
the term `protected customer' means any entity that is--
``(i) a Federal agency;
``(ii) a State, State agency, city, county, municipality,
or other political subdivision of a State;
``(iii) any employee benefit plan, as defined in section 3
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1002);
``(iv) any governmental plan, as defined in section 3 of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1002); or
``(v) any endowment that is an organization described in
section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(B) Prohibition.--
``(i) In general.--It shall be unlawful for a security-
based swap dealer that provides advice regarding, offers to
enter into, or enters into, a security-based swap with a
protected customer--
``(I) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud
any protected customer or prospective protected customer;
``(II) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of
business that operates as a fraud or deceit on any protected
customer or prospective protected customer;
``(III) if the security-based swap dealer acts as a
principal for the account of the security-based swap dealer,
to knowingly sell any security-based swap to, or purchase any
security-based swap from, a protected customer, or if the
security-based swap dealer acts as a broker for a person
other than the protected customer, to knowingly effect any
sale or purchase of any security-based swap for the account
of the protected customer, without--
``(aa) before the completion of the transaction, disclosing
to the protected customer in writing the capacity in which
the security-based swap dealer is acting; and
``(bb) obtaining the consent of the protected customer in
writing with respect to the transaction; and
``(IV) to engage in any act, practice, or course of
business that is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.
``(ii) Regulations.--As soon as practicable after the date
of enactment of this subparagraph, the Commission shall issue
rules and promulgate regulations to prescribe requirements
that are reasonably designed to prevent acts, practices, and
courses of business that are fraudulent, deceptive, or
manipulative.
``(C) Requirements.--
``(i) In general.--A security-based swap dealer that
recommends a security-based swap with a protected customer
shall comply with clauses (ii) and (iii).
``(ii) Reasonable grounds.--In recommending to a protected
customer the purchase, sale, or exchange of any security-
based swap, a security-based swap dealer shall have
reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is
in the best interests of the protected customer.
``(iii) Reasonable efforts.--Before the execution of a
transaction recommended to a protected customer under clause
(ii), a security-based swap dealer shall make reasonable
efforts to obtain such information as is necessary to
determine whether the transaction is in the best interests of
the protected customer, including--
``(I) information relating to--
``(aa) the financial status of the protected customer;
``(bb) the tax status of the protected customer; and
``(cc) the stated investment objectives of the protected
customer; and
``(II) such other information that--
``(aa) is used or considered to be reasonable by the
security-based swap dealer in making recommendations to the
protected customer; and
``(bb) the Commission may prescribe by rule or regulation.
``(iv) Business conduct requirements.--A security-based
swap dealer shall satisfy each business conduct requirement
described in paragraph (3).
``(D) Written representations.--
``(i) In general.--Before entering into a security-based
swap with a protected customer, a security-based swap dealer
shall receive in writing a representation from the protected
customer confirming that the security-based swap transaction
has been expressly authorized--
``(I) by an advisor that is independent of the security-
based swap dealer; and
``(II) in the case of an employee benefit plan subject to
the fiduciary duty requirements under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), by a
representative independent of the security-based swap dealer
that is a fiduciary, as defined in section 3 of that Act (29
U.S.C. 1002).
``(ii) Regulations.--Not later than December 31, 2010, the
Commission shall issue rules or promulgate regulations to
provide guidelines to determine qualifications for advisors
that are authorized to provide advice under clause (i)(I).
______
SA 4050. Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Whitehouse) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by
Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S.
3217, to promote the financial stability of the United States by
improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to
end ``too big to fail,'' to protect the American taxpayer by ending
bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services
practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 1187, line 9, strike ``effective.'' insert the
following: ``effective.
Subtitle K--Resource Extraction Issuers
SEC. 995. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) It is in the interest of the United States to promote
good governance in the extractive industries sector.
Transparency in revenue payments benefits oil, gas, and
mining companies, because it improves the business climate in
which such companies work, increases the reliability of
commodity supplies upon which businesses and people in the
United States rely, and promotes greater energy security.
(2) Companies in the extractive industries sector face
unique tax and reputational risks, in the form of country-
specific taxes and regulations. Exposure to these risks is
heightened by the substantial capital employed in the
extractive industries, and the often opaque and unaccountable
management of natural resource revenues by foreign
governments, which in turn creates unstable and high-cost
operating environments for multinational companies. The
effects of these risks are material to investors.
[[Page 8339]]
SEC. 996. DISCLOSURE OF PAYMENTS BY RESOURCE EXTRACTION
ISSUERS.
Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78m), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(p) Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction
Issuers.--
``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
``(A) the term `commercial development of oil, natural gas,
or minerals' includes exploration, extraction, processing,
export, and other significant actions relating to oil,
natural gas, or minerals, or the acquisition of a license for
any such activity, as determined by the Commission;
``(B) the term `foreign government' means a foreign
government, a department, agency, or instrumentality of a
foreign government, or a company owned by a foreign
government, as determined by the Commission;
``(C) the term `payment'--
``(i) means a payment that is--
``(I) made to further the commercial development of oil,
natural gas, or minerals; and
``(II) not de minimis; and
``(ii) includes taxes, royalties, fees (including license
fees), production entitlements, bonuses, and other material
benefits, that the Commission, consistent with the guidelines
of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (to the
extent practicable), determines are part of the commonly
recognized revenue stream for the commercial development of
oil, natural gas, or minerals;
``(D) the term `resource extraction issuer' means an issuer
that--
``(i) is required to file an annual report with the
Commission; and
``(ii) engages in the commercial development of oil,
natural gas, or minerals;
``(E) the term `interactive data format' means an
electronic data format in which pieces of information are
identified using an interactive data standard; and
``(F) the term `interactive data standard' means
standardized list of electronic tags that mark information
included in the annual report of a resource extraction
issuer.
``(2) Disclosure.--
``(A) Information required.--Not later than 270 days after
the date of enactment of the Restoring American Financial
Stability Act of 2010, the Commission shall issue final rules
that require each resource extraction issuer to include in an
annual report of the resource extraction issuer information
relating to any payment made by the resource extraction
issuer, a subsidiary of the resource extraction issuer, or an
entity under the control of the resource extraction issuer to
a foreign government or the Federal Government for the
purpose of the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or
minerals, including--
``(i) the type and total amount of such payments made for
each project of the resource extraction issuer relating to
the commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals;
and
``(ii) the type and total amount of such payments made to
each government.
``(B) Consultation in rulemaking.--In issuing rules under
subparagraph (A), the Commission may consult with any agency
or entity that the Commission determines is relevant.
``(C) Interactive data format.--The rules issued under
subparagraph (A) shall require that the information included
in the annual report of a resource extraction issuer be
submitted in an interactive data format.
``(D) Interactive data standard.--
``(i) In general.--The rules issued under subparagraph (A)
shall establish an interactive data standard for the
information included in the annual report of a resource
extraction issuer.
``(ii) Electronic tags.--The interactive data standard
shall include electronic tags that identify, for any payments
made by a resource extraction issuer to a foreign government
or the Federal Government--
``(I) the total amounts of the payments, by category;
``(II) the currency used to make the payments;
``(III) the financial period in which the payments were
made;
``(IV) the business segment of the resource extraction
issuer that made the payments;
``(V) the government that received the payments, and the
country in which the government is located;
``(VI) the project of the resource extraction issuer to
which the payments relate; and
``(VII) such other information as the Commission may
determine is necessary or appropriate in the public interest
or for the protection of investors.
``(E) International transparency efforts.--To the extent
practicable, the rules issued under subparagraph (A) shall
support the commitment of the Federal Government to
international transparency promotion efforts relating to the
commercial development of oil, natural gas, or minerals.
``(F) Effective date.--With respect to each resource
extraction issuer, the final rules issued under subparagraph
(A) shall take effect on the date on which the resource
extraction issuer is required to submit an annual report
relating to the fiscal year of the resource extraction issuer
that ends not earlier than 1 year after the date on which the
Commission issues final rules under subparagraph (A).
``(3) Public availability of information.--
``(A) In general.--To the extent practicable, the
Commission shall make available online, to the public, a
compilation of the information required to be submitted under
the rules issued under paragraph (2)(A).
``(B) Other information.--Nothing in this paragraph shall
require the Commission to make available online information
other than the information required to be submitted under the
rules issued under paragraph (2)(A).
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Commission such sums as
may be necessary to carry out this subsection.''.
______
SA 4051. Mr. GREGG submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and
Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability
of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the
American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 18, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS TO PAY STATE
OBLIGATIONS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no Federal funds may be used to purchase or guarantee
obligations of, issue lines of credit to or provide direct or
indirect grants-and-aid to, any State government, municipal
government, local government, or county government which has
defaulted on its obligations, is at risk of defaulting, or is
likely to default, absent such assistance from the United
States Government.
(b) Limit on Use of Borrowed Funds.--The Secretary shall
not, directly or indirectly, use general fund revenues or
funds borrowed pursuant to title 31, United States Code, to
purchase or guarantee any asset or obligation of any State
government, municipal government, local government, or county
government or to otherwise assist such governments, in any
instance in which the State government, municipal government,
or county government has defaulted on its obligations, is at
risk of defaulting, or is likely to default, absent such
assistance from the United States Government.
(c) Limit on Federal Reserve Funds.--The Board of Governors
shall not, directly or indirectly, lend against, purchase, or
guarantee any asset or obligation of any State government,
municipal government, local government, or county government
or to otherwise assist such governments, in any instance in
which the State government, municipal government, local
government, or county government has defaulted on its
obligations, is at risk of defaulting, or is likely to
default, absent such assistance from the United States
Government. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
Federal funds may be used to pay the obligations of any
State, or to issue a line of credit to any State.
______
SA 4052. Mr. CORKER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and
Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability
of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the
American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1056, line 17, strike the second period and insert
the following: ``.
SEC. 946. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES FOR POOL ASSETS.
(a) Representations and Warranties.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
(A) the terms ``asset-backed security'', ``servicer'', and
``sponsor'' have the meanings given those terms under
Regulation AB; and
(B) the term ``Regulation AB'' means subpart 229.1100 of
title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
thereto.
(2) Rules required.--
(A) Compliance.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue rules, as
the Commission determines is necessary and appropriate
consistent with the protection of investors, that require any
issuance of an asset-backed security to comply with paragraph
(3).
(B) Definition.--The Commission shall, by rule, define the
term ``pool assets'' for purposes of this subsection.
[[Page 8340]]
(3) Periodic independent evaluation.--The pooling and
servicing agreement for an asset-backed security shall
contain provisions requiring the sponsor of the asset-backed
security to furnish to the trustee of the asset-backed
security, on a quarterly basis, a certificate or opinion from
an independent evaluator that--
(A) identifies any pool assets that in the prior quarter,
the trustee notified, or had the right to notify, the obligor
that it had an obligation to repurchase or substitute under
the terms of the pooling and servicing agreement because of a
breach or violation of a representation or warranty; and
(B) includes facts supporting a finding as to whether any
representation or warranty made with respect to any pool
asset has been breached or violated.
(4) Independent evaluator.--For purposes of paragraph (3),
an independent evaluator shall--
(A) be subject to removal upon the vote of 25 percent of
the holders of outstanding shares of the asset-backed
security; and
(B) have access to the pool asset records and related
documents of any party to the pooling and servicing agreement
and any person performing work on behalf of any party to the
pooling and servicing agreement.
(5) Exemptions.--The Commission may, by rule, exempt a
class of asset-backed securities from the rules issued under
this subsection, if the Commission determines that the
application of such rules to the class of asset-backed
securities would cause undue disruption to a segment of the
market affected by the class of asset-backed securities.
(b) Direct Review.--An investor or group of investors that
holds not less than 20 percent of the outstanding securities
of an asset-backed security (including an asset-backed
security that is not subject to the requirements under
subpart 229.1100 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations)
that is issued or outstanding on or before the date of
enactment of this Act shall have access to all loan documents
and related documents of any servicer of the asset-backed
security (including servicing records), unless otherwise
prohibited in a contract with respect to the asset-backed
security.
(c) Enforcement.--The Commission may enforce the rules
issued under this section in the same manner as the
Commission enforces rules issued under the Securities Act of
1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).
______
SA 4053. Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Brown of Ohio) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by
Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S.
3217, to promote the financial stability of the United States by
improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to
end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending
bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services
practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 540, line 16, strike ``purchase'' and insert
``purchase or lease''.
On page 580, line 20, insert ``and involved in hedging
activities related to'' after ``engaged in''.
On page 580, line 21, strike ``purchase'' and insert
``purchase or lease''.
On page 580, line 23, strike ``user'' and insert ``user
(including any subsidiary of the commercial end user)''.
On page 580, lines 24 and 25, strike ``only if the
affiliate'' and insert ``as can affiliates''.
On page 581, line 1, strike ``uses'' and insert ``using''.
On page 582, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
``(iii) Transition rule.--An affiliate or a wholly owned
entity of a commercial end user that is predominantly engaged
in providing financing for the purchase or lease of
merchandise or manufactured goods of the commercial end user
affiliate (including any subsidiary of the commercial end
user) shall be exempt from the margin requirement described
in section 4s(e) and the clearing requirement described in
paragraph (1) with regard to swaps entered into to mitigate
the risk of the financing activities for not less than a 3-
year period beginning on the date of enactment of this
clause.
``(iv) Authority of commission.--On or prior to the date on
which the 3-year period described in clause (iii) ends, the
Commission may extend the exemption described in that clause
for an additional 1-year period if the Commission--
``(I) determines the extension to be in the public
interest; and
``(II) publishes in the Federal Register the order granting
the extension (including the reasons for the extension).
______
SA 4054. Mr. CORKER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and
Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability
of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the
American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1052, line 3, strike ``SEC. 942.'' and insert the
following:
SEC. 942. RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE UNDERWRITING STANDARDS.
(a) Standards Established.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act or any other provision of Federal,
State, or local law, the Federal banking agencies, in
consultation with the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, shall jointly
establish specific minimum standards for mortgage
underwriting, including--
(1) a requirement that the mortgagee verify and document
the income and assets relied upon to qualify the mortgagor on
the residential mortgage, including the previous employment
and credit history of the mortgagor;
(2) a down payment requirement that--
(A) is equal to not less than 5 percent of the purchase
price of the property securing the residential mortgage; and
(B) in the case of a first lien residential mortgage loan
with an initial loan to value ratio that is more than 80
percent and not more than 95 percent, includes a requirement
for credit enhancements, as defined by the Federal banking
agencies, until the loan to value ratio of the residential
mortgage loan amortizes to a value that is less than 80
percent of the purchase price;
(3) a method for determining the ability of the mortgagor
to repay the residential mortgage that is based on factors
including--
(A) all terms of the residential mortgage, including
principal payments that fully amortize the balance of the
residential mortgage over the term of the residential
mortgage; and
(B) the debt to income ratio of the mortgagor; and
(4) any other specific standards the Federal banking
agencies jointly determine are appropriate to ensure prudent
underwriting of residential mortgages.
(b) Updates to Standards.--The Federal banking agencies, in
consultation with the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development--
(1) shall review the standards established under this
section not less frequently than every 5 years; and
(2) based on the review under paragraph (1), may revise the
standards established under this section, as the Federal
banking agencies, in consultation with the Federal Housing
Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, determine to be necessary.
(c) Compliance.--It shall be a violation of Federal law--
(1) for any mortgage loan originator to fail to comply with
the minimum standards for mortgage underwriting established
under subsection (a) in originating a residential mortgage
loan;
(2) for any company to maintain an extension of credit on a
revolving basis to any person to fund a residential mortgage
loan, unless the company reasonably determines that the
residential mortgage loan funded by such credit was subject
to underwriting standards no less stringent than the minimum
standards for mortgage underwriting established under
subsection (a); or
(3) for any company to purchase, fund by assignment, or
guarantee a residential mortgage loan, unless the company
reasonably determines that the residential mortgage loan was
subject to underwriting standards no less stringent than the
minimum standards for mortgage underwriting established under
subsection (a).
(d) Implementation.--
(1) Regulations required.--The Federal banking agencies, in
consultation with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, shall
issue regulations to implement subsections (a) and (c), which
shall take effect not later than 270 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(2) Report required.--If the Federal banking agencies have
not issued final regulations under subsections (a) and (c)
before the date that is 270 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Federal banking agencies shall jointly
submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives a report that--
(A) explains why final regulations have not been issued
under subsections (a) and (c); and
(B) provides a timeline for the issuance of final
regulations under subsections (a) and (c).
(e) Enforcement.--Compliance with the rules issued under
this section shall be enforced by--
(1) the primary financial regulatory agency of an entity,
with respect to an entity subject to the jurisdiction of a
primary financial regulatory agency, in accordance with
[[Page 8341]]
the statutes governing the jurisdiction of the primary
financial regulatory agency over the entity and as if the
action of the primary financial regulatory agency were taken
under such statutes; and
(2) the Bureau, with respect to a company that is not
subject to the jurisdiction of a primary financial regulatory
agency.
(f) Exemptions for Certain Nonprofit Mortgage Loan
Originators.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal banking agencies, in
consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and the Secretary of the Treasury, may jointly
issue rules to exempt from the requirements under subsection
(a)(2), mortgage loan originators that--
(A) are exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
(B) were in existence on January 1, 2009.
(2) Determining factors.--The Federal banking agencies
shall ensure that--
(A) the lending activities of a mortgage loan originator
that receives an exemption under this subsection do not
threaten the safety and soundness of the banking system of
the United States; and
(B) a mortgage loan originator that receives an exemption
under this subsection--
(i) is not compensated based on the number or value of
residential mortgage loan applications accepted, offered, or
negotiated by the mortgage loan originator;
(ii) does not offer residential mortgage loans that have an
interest rate greater than zero percent;
(iii) does not gain a monetary profit from any residential
mortgage product or service provided;
(iv) has the primary purpose of serving low income housing
needs;
(v) has not been specifically prohibited, by statute, from
receiving Federal funding; and
(vi) meets any other requirements that the Federal banking
agencies jointly determine are appropriate for ensuring that
a mortgage loan originator that receives an exemption under
this subsection does not threaten the safety and soundness of
the banking system of the United States.
(3) Reports required.--Before the issuance of final rules
under subsection (a), and annually thereafter, the Federal
banking agencies shall jointly submit to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives a report that--
(A) identifies the mortgage loan originators that receive
an exemption under this subsection; and
(B) for each mortgage loan originator identified under
subparagraph (A), the rationale for providing an exemption.
(4) Updates to exemptions.--The Federal banking agencies,
in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and the Secretary of the Treasury--
(A) shall review the exemptions established under this
subsection not less frequently than every 2 years; and
(B) based on the review under subparagraph (A), may revise
the standards established under this subsection, as the
Federal banking agencies, in consultation with the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of the
Treasury, determine to be necessary.
(g) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to permit--
(1) the Federal National Mortgage Association or the
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation to make or guarantee a
residential mortgage loan that does not meet the minimum
underwriting standards established under this section; or
(2) the Federal banking agencies to issue an exemption
under subsection (f) that is not on a case-by-case basis.
(h) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions shall apply:
(1) Company.--The term ``company''--
(A) has the same meaning as in section 2(b) of the Bank
Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(b)); and
(B) includes a sole proprietorship.
(2) Mortgage loan originator.--The term ``mortgage loan
originator'' means any company that takes residential
mortgage loan applications and offers or negotiates terms of
residential mortgage loans.
(3) Residential mortgage loan.--The term ``residential
mortgage loan''--
(A) means any extension of credit primarily for personal,
family, or household use that is secured by a mortgage, deed
of trust, or other equivalent security interest in a dwelling
or residential real estate upon which is constructed or
intended to be constructed a dwelling; and
(B) does not include a mortgage loan for which mortgage
insurance is provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs
or the Rural Housing Administration.
(4) Extension of credit; dwelling.--The terms ``extension
of credit'' and ``dwelling'' shall have the same meaning as
in section 103 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602).
SEC. 943. STUDY ON FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
UNDERWRITING STANDARDS.
(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a study evaluating whether the
underwriting criteria used by the Federal Housing
Administration are sufficient to ensure the solvency of the
Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund of the Federal Housing
Administration and the safety and soundness of the banking
system of the United States.
(2) Issues to be studied.--In conducting the study under
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall evaluate--
(A) down payment requirements for Federal Housing
Administration borrowers;
(B) default rates of mortgages insured by the Federal
Housing Administration;
(C) characteristics of Federal Housing Administration
borrowers who are most likely to default;
(D) taxpayer exposure to losses incurred by the Federal
Housing Administration;
(E) the impact of the market share of the Federal Housing
Administration on efforts to sustain a viable private
mortgage market; and
(F) any other factors that Comptroller General determines
are appropriate.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a) that includes recommendations for statutory improvements
to be made to the underwriting criteria used by the Federal
Housing Administration, to ensure the solvency of the Mutual
Mortgage Insurance Fund of the Federal Housing Administration
and the safety and soundness of the banking system of the
United States.
SEC. 944.
______
SA 4055. Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mrs. Hagan, and Mr. Cornyn)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739
proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to
the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability of the United
States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial
system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by
ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services
practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:
On page 485, line 14, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through line 25 and insert the following:
(B) subject to such restrictions as the Federal banking
agencies may determine, does not include purchasing or
selling, or otherwise acquiring or disposing of, stocks,
bonds, options, commodities, derivatives, or other financial
instruments on behalf of a customer, as part of market making
activities, or otherwise in connection with or in
facilitation of customer relationships, including risk-
mitigating hedging activities related to such a purchase,
sale, acquisition, or disposal; and
(C) does not include the investments of a regulated
insurance company, or a regulated insurance affiliate or
regulated insurance subsidiary thereof, if--
(i) such investments are in compliance with, and subject
to, the insurance company investment laws, regulations, and
written guidance of the State or jurisdiction in which each
such insurance company is domiciled; and
(ii) the Federal banking agencies, after consultation with
the Council and the relevant insurance commissioners of the
States and territories of the United States, have not jointly
determined, after notice and comment, that a law, a
regulation, or written guidance described in clause (i) is
insufficient to accomplish the purposes of this section; and
______
SA 4056. Mr. BOND (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Warner, Mr. Brown of
Massachusetts, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Corker, Mr.
Tester, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Reid) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for
Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to
promote the financial stability of the United States by improving
accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too
big to fail'', to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to
protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes; as follows:
On page 387, strike line 13 and all that follows through
page 388, line 3, and insert the following:
SEC. 412. ADJUSTING THE ACCREDITED INVESTOR STANDARD.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall adjust any net worth
standard for an accredited investor, as set forth in the
rules of the Commission under the Securities Act of 1933, so
that the individual net worth of any natural person, or joint
net worth with the spouse of that person, at the time of
purchase, is more than $1,000,000 (as such
[[Page 8342]]
amount is adjusted periodically by rule of the Commission),
excluding the value of the primary residence of such natural
person, except that during the 4-year period that begins on
the date of enactment of this Act, any net worth standard
shall be $1,000,000, excluding the value of the primary
residence of such natural person.
(b) Review and Adjustment.--
(1) Initial review and adjustment.--
(A) Initial review.--The Commission may undertake a review
of the definition of the term ``accredited investor'', as
such term applies to natural persons, to determine whether
the requirements of the definition, excluding the requirement
relating to the net worth standard described in subsection
(a), should be adjusted or modified for the protection of
investors, in the public interest, and in light of the
economy.
(B) Adjustment or modification.--Upon completion of a
review under subparagraph (A), the Commission may, by notice
and comment rulemaking, make such adjustments to the
definition of the term ``accredited investor'', excluding
adjusting or modifying the requirement relating to the net
worth standard described in subsection (a), as such term
applies to natural persons, as the Commission may deem
appropriate for the protection of investors, in the public
interest, and in light of the economy.
(2) Subsequent reviews and adjustment.--
(A) Subsequent reviews.--Not earlier than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, and not less frequently than
once every 4 years thereafter, the Commission shall undertake
a review of the definition, in its entirety, of the term
``accredited investor'', as defined in section 230.215 of
title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
thereto, as such term applies to natural persons, to
determine whether the requirements of the definition should
be adjusted or modified for the protection of investors, in
the public interest, and in light of the economy.
(B) Adjustment or modification.--Upon completion of a
review under subparagraph (A), the Commission may, by notice
and comment rulemaking, make such adjustments to the
definition of the term ``accredited investor'', as defined in
section 230.215 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor thereto, as such term applies to natural
persons, as the Commission may deem appropriate for the
protection of investors, in the public interest, and in light
of the economy.
On page 388, line 14, strike ``1 year'' and insert ``3
years''.
On page 998, strike line 12 and all that follows through
page 1001, line 25, and insert the following:
SEC. 926. DISQUALIFYING FELONS AND OTHER ``BAD ACTORS'' FROM
REGULATION D OFFERINGS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall issue rules for the
disqualification of offerings and sales of securities made
under section 230.506 of title 17, Code of Federal
Regulations, that--
(1) are substantially similar to the provisions of section
230.262 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, or any
successor thereto; and
(2) disqualify any offering or sale of securities by a
person that--
(A) is subject to a final order of a State securities
commission (or an agency or officer of a State performing
like functions), a State authority that supervises or
examines banks, savings associations, or credit unions, a
State insurance commission (or an agency or officer of a
State performing like functions), an appropriate Federal
banking agency, or the National Credit Union Administration,
that--
(i) bars the person from--
(I) association with an entity regulated by such
commission, authority, agency, or officer;
(II) engaging in the business of securities, insurance, or
banking; or
(III) engaging in savings association or credit union
activities; or
(ii) constitutes a final order based on a violation of any
law or regulation that prohibits fraudulent, manipulative, or
deceptive conduct within the 10-year period ending on the
date of the filing of the offer or sale; or
(B) has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor in
connection with the purchase or sale of any security or
involving the making of any false filing with the Commission.
______
SA 4057. Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Corker) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for
Mr. Dodd (for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to
promote the financial stability of the United States by improving
accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too
big to fail,'' to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to
protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 956, strike line 10 and all that follows through
page 957, line 11, and insert the following:
SEC. 978. FUNDING FOR GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
BOARD.
(a) Amendment to Securities Act of 1933.--Section 19 of the
Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77s), as amended by section
912, is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g)(1) The Commission may, subject to the limitations
imposed by section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act (15
U.S.C. 78o-4) require a national securities association
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to
establish--
``(A) a reasonable annual accounting support fee to
adequately fund the annual budget of the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (hereafter referred to in this
subsection as the `GASB'); and
``(B) rules and procedures, in consultation with the
principal organizations representing State governors,
legislators, local elected officials, and State and local
finance officers, to provide for the equitable allocation,
assessment, and collection of the accounting support fee
established under subparagraph (A) from the members of the
association, and the remittance of all such accounting
support fees to the Financial Accounting Foundation.
``(2) Annual budget.--For purpose of this subsection, the
annual budget of the GASB is the annual budget reviewed and
approved according to the FAF's internal procedures.
``(3) Use of funds.--Any funds collected under this
subsection shall be used to support the efforts of the GASB
to establish standards of financial accounting and reporting
recognized as generally accepted accounting principles
applicable to State and local governments of the United
States.
``(4) Limitation on fee.--The annual accounting support
fees collected under this subsection for a fiscal year shall
not exceed the recoverable annual budgeted expenses of the
GASB (which may include operating expenses, capital, and
accrued items).
``(5) Rules of construction.--
``(A) Fees not public monies.--Accounting support fees
collected pursuant to this subsection and other receipts of
the GASB shall not be considered public monies of the United
States.
``(B) Limitation on authority of the commission.--Nothing
in this subsection shall be construed to--
``(i) provide the Commission or any national securities
association direct or indirect oversight of GASB's budget or
technical agenda; or
``(ii) affect the GASB's setting of generally accepted
accounting principles.
``(C) Noninterference with states.--Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to impair or limit the
authority of a State or local government to establish
accounting and financial reporting standards.''.
(b) Study of Funding for Governmental Accounting Standards
Board.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study that evaluates--
(A) the role and importance of the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board in the municipal securities markets;
(B) the manner and the level at which the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board has been funded;
(2) Consultation.--In conducting the study required under
paragraph (1), the Comptroller General shall consult with the
principal organizations representing State governors,
legislators, and local elected officials and State and local
finance officers.
(3) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of
the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the
House of Representatives a report on the study required under
paragraph (1).
______
SA 4058. Mr. SHELBY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and
Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability
of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail,'' to protect the
American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1223, line 5, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through line 7, and insert the following:
(8) an Office of Management and Budget (hereafter in this
section referred to as ``OMB'') analysis of the economic
impact of all rules and orders adopted by the Bureau, as well
as other initiatives conducted by the Bureau, during the
preceding year, which shall include--
(A) the total costs of such rules, orders, and initiatives;
(B) the annual impact on employment, both nationally and by
State;
[[Page 8343]]
(C) the estimated time for covered persons to comply with
such rules, orders, and initiatives, both on average and by
size of business covered; and
(D) the number of persons affected by each such rule,
order, and initiative;
(9) an OMB analysis of the economic impact of all statutes,
rules, regulations, and orders related to this Act, which
shall include--
(A) a statement of the need for the proposed action and an
analysis of whether there exists a market failure;
(B) an examination of alternative approaches, including a
baseline case of not taking the regulatory action;
(C) a statement of the plausible scenarios for which the
proposed action could lead to a Government failure;
(D) the total costs of all such rules and orders;
(E) the annual impact on employment nationally, by State,
and by industry;
(F) the estimated time for covered persons to comply with
all such rules, orders, and initiatives both on average and
by size of business covered;
(G) the number of persons affected by each such rule,
order, and initiative;
(H) an analysis of estimated effects on market efficiency
and market competition, including a Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) analysis to assess the impact on
small business and other small entities;
(I) an analysis of estimated effects on United States
economic growth, United States economic competitiveness, and
international trade;
(J) a Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35)
analysis;
(K) a report of the precision of estimates and a statement
of the key assumptions;
(L) a sensitivity analysis, based on plausible alternative
assumptions for data, methodologies, and assumed levels of
compliance and enforcement;
(M) any other economic analysis of regulatory actions
required by Executive Order by the President of the United
States;
(10) the annual compensation received by employees of the
Bureau, including the total, the average, and the number of
employees receiving salaries in excess of $100,000 and
$200,000 and such calculation of compensation shall include
the value of all non-salary compensation (including flex-
time, vacation time, retirement benefits, and collective
bargaining benefits);
(11) a copy of any collective bargaining agreements, or
amendments to such agreements, entered into between the
Bureau and its union during the preceding year;
(12) an analysis of the effectiveness of the Bureau,
including evidence on whether each rule and regulation it has
adopted during the preceding 10 years have produced a
reduction in consumer complaints;
(13) a copy of any agreements with State attorneys, State
regulators, private attorneys, or any other person or entity
relating to the enforcement of consumer financial protection
laws; and
(14) an analysis of the efforts of the Bureau to fulfill
the fair lending mission of the Bureau.
(d) Annual Review of Rules and Regulations.--
(1) In general.--OMB shall review, on a rolling-basis each
statute, rule, regulation, and order related to this Act, to
determine whether such statute, rule, regulation, order has
achieved its intended result and whether such statute, rule,
regulation, or order should be modified or repealed based on
changes in the marketplace. Each such statute, rule,
regulation, and order shall be reviewed not less frequently
than once every 8 years.
(2) Report.--In connection with the review required under
paragraph (1), OMB shall annually produce a report discussing
its findings, including--
(A) providing evidence on whether each statute, rule,
regulation, or order under review should be retained,
modified, or repealed;
(B) a discussion of the original intent of each statute,
rule, regulation, and order;
(C) an analysis of whether each such statute, rule,
regulation, and order achieved its intended results; and
(D) a cost benefit analysis of such statute, rule,
regulation, and order that estimates the actual costs imposed
on the private sector, compared to the actual benefits to the
private sector attained, which cost benefit analysis shall
include the costs of complying with such statute, rule,
regulation, and order, the impact on innovation, and actual
litigation costs incurred by private and governmental parties
in litigating such statute and regulation.
(3) Notice to bureau.--If OMB determines under paragraph
(2) that any regulation has not yielded a positive cost-
benefit result, the Bureau shall be promptly repealed such
regulation or modify such regulation so that it is estimated
to produce a positive cost-benefit result.
(4) Notice to congress.--If OMB determines under paragraph
(2) that any statute has not yielded a positive cost-benefit
result, OMB shall notify Congress and provide a
recommendation on whether the statute should be repealed or
modified to produce a positive cost-benefit result.
______
SA 4059. Mr. REID (for Mrs. Lincoln (for herself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Cochran, and Mr. Brown of Ohio)) submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for
himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the
financial stability of the United States by improving accountability
and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'',
to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect
consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 565, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(e) Preservation of Other Regulatory Authority.--Section
2(a)(1)(C) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C.
2(a)(1)(C)) (as amended by section 717(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(vi) No provision of this Act shall be construed--
``(I) to supersede or limit the authority of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act (16
U.S.C. 791a et seq.) or the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 et
seq.);
``(II) to restrict the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
from carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Acts described
in subclause (I);
``(III) to affect the authority of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission to approve, deny, or otherwise permit
any rate or charge made, demanded, or received by any public
utility or natural gas company for the transportation or sale
of electric energy or natural gas subject to the jurisdiction
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; or
``(IV) to supersede or limit the authority of a State
regulatory commission that has jurisdiction to regulate rates
and charges for the transmission or sale of electric energy
within the State, or restrict that State regulatory
commission from carrying out the duties and responsibilities
of the State regulatory commission pursuant to the
jurisdiction of the State regulatory commission to regulate
rates and charges for the transmission or sale of electric
energy.
``(vii) Nothing in clause (vi) shall affect the
Commission's exclusive jurisdiction under subparagraph (A)
with respect to the trading, execution, or clearing of any
agreement, contract, or transaction on or subject to the
rules of a registered entity, including a designated contract
market, derivatives clearing organization, or swap execution
facility.''.
(f) Public Interest Waiver.--Section 4(c) of the Commodity
Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6(c)) (as amended by section 721(d))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(6) If the Commission determines that the exemption would
be consistent with the public interest and the purposes of
this Act, the Commission shall, in accordance with paragraphs
(1) and (2), exempt from the requirements of this Act an
agreement, contract, or transaction that is entered into--
``(A) pursuant to a tariff or rate schedule approved or
permitted to take effect by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission;
``(B) pursuant to a tariff or rate schedule establishing
rates or charges for, or protocols governing, the sale of
electric energy approved or permitted to take effect by the
regulatory body of the State or municipality having
jurisdiction to regulate rates and charges for the sale of
electric energy within the State or municipality; or
``(C) between entities described in section 201(f) of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824(f)).
``(7)(A) Any person may apply to the Commission for an
exemption from the requirements of this Act with respect to
an agreement, contract, or transaction described in paragraph
(6).
``(B) Not later than 1 business day after the date of
receipt of an application described in subparagraph (A), the
Commission shall notify, and provide a copy of the
application to--
``(i) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; and
``(ii) with respect to an application filed with respect to
paragraph (6)(B), the relevant State regulatory body or
municipality.
``(C) The Commission shall provide not less than a 30-day
period for public comment with respect to any application
described in subparagraph (A).
``(D)(i) Not later than the date on which the public
comment period described in subparagraph (C) expires, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (and the relevant State
regulatory body or municipality with respect to an
application filed with respect to paragraph (6)(B)) may
provide to the Commission a recommendation regarding the
application for exemption.
``(ii) The Commission shall give due consideration to any
recommendation described in clause (i).
[[Page 8344]]
``(E) Not later than 120 days after the date of receipt of
an application described in subparagraph (A), the Commission
shall, by order--
``(i) grant an exemption in accordance with paragraph (6);
or
``(ii) provide to the applicant a document that contains a
description of each reason relied on by the Commission for
not granting an exemption.''.
______
SA 4060. Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd
(for himself and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the
financial stability of the United States by improving accountability
and transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'',
to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect
consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 485, strike line 1 and all that follows through
page 489, line 13, and insert the following:
(2) the term ``insured depository institution'' does not
include an institution described in section 2(c)(2)(D) of the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841(c)(2)(D));
(3) the term ``proprietary trading''--
(A) means purchasing or selling, or otherwise acquiring or
disposing of, stocks, bonds, options, commodities,
derivatives, or other financial instruments by an insured
depository institution, a company that controls, directly or
indirectly, an insured depository institution or is treated
as a bank holding company for purposes of the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.), and any
subsidiary of such institution or company, for the trading
book (or such other portfolio as the Federal banking agencies
may determine) of such institution, company, or subsidiary;
(B) subject to such restrictions as the Federal banking
agencies may determine, does not include purchasing or
selling, or otherwise acquiring or disposing of, stocks,
bonds, options, commodities, derivatives, or other financial
instruments on behalf of a customer, as part of market making
activities, or otherwise in connection with or in
facilitation of customer relationships, including risk-
mitigating hedging activities related to such a purchase,
sale, acquisition, or disposal; and
(C) does not include the investments of a regulated
insurance company, or a regulated insurance affiliate or
regulated insurance subsidiary thereof, if--
(i) such investments are in compliance with, and subject
to, the insurance company investment laws, regulations, and
written guidance of the State or jurisdiction in which each
such insurance company is domiciled; and
(ii) the Federal banking agencies, after consultation with
the Council and the relevant insurance commissioners of the
States and territories of the United States, have not jointly
determined, after notice and comment, that a law, a
regulation, or written guidance described in clause (i) is
insufficient to accomplish the purposes of this section; and
(4) the term ``sponsoring'', when used with respect to a
hedge fund or private equity fund, means--
(A) serving as a general partner, managing member, or
trustee of the fund;
(B) in any manner selecting or controlling (or having
employees, officers, directors, or agents who constitute) a
majority of the directors, trustees, or management of the
fund; or
(C) sharing with the fund, for corporate, marketing,
promotional, or other purposes, the same name or a variation
of the same name.
(b) Prohibition on Proprietary Trading.--
(1) In general.--Subject to the recommendations and
modifications of the Council under subsection (g), and except
as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the appropriate Federal
banking agencies shall, through a rulemaking under subsection
(g), jointly prohibit proprietary trading by an insured
depository institution, a company that controls, directly or
indirectly, an insured depository institution or is treated
as a bank holding company for purposes of the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.), and any
subsidiary of such institution or company.
(2) Excepted obligations.--
(A) In general.--The prohibition under this subsection
shall not apply with respect to an investment that is
otherwise authorized by Federal law in--
(i) obligations of the United States or any agency of the
United States, including obligations fully guaranteed as to
principal and interest by the United States or an agency of
the United States;
(ii) obligations, participations, or other instruments of,
or issued by, the Government National Mortgage Association,
the Federal National Mortgage Association, or the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, including obligations fully
guaranteed as to principal and interest by such entities; and
(iii) obligations of any State or any political subdivision
of a State.
(B) Conditions.--The appropriate Federal banking agencies
may impose conditions on the conduct of investments described
in subparagraph (A).
(C) Rule of construction.--Nothing in subparagraph (A) may
be construed to grant any authority to any person that is not
otherwise provided in Federal law.
(3) Foreign activities.--An investment or activity
conducted by a company pursuant to paragraph (9) or (13) of
section 4(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12
U.S.C. 1843(c)) solely outside of the United States shall not
be subject to the prohibition under paragraph (1), provided
that the company is not directly or indirectly controlled by
a company that is organized under the laws of the United
States or of a State.
(c) Prohibition on Sponsoring and Investing in Hedge Funds
and Private Equity Funds.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), and
subject to the recommendations and modifications of the
Council under subsection (g), the appropriate Federal banking
agencies shall, through a rulemaking under subsection (g),
jointly prohibit an insured depository institution, a company
that controls, directly or indirectly, an insured depository
institution or is treated as a bank holding company for
purposes of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C.
1841 et seq.), or any subsidiary of such institution or
company, from sponsoring or investing in a hedge fund or a
private equity fund.
(2) Application to foreign activities of foreign firms.--An
investment or activity conducted by a company pursuant to
paragraph (9) or (13) of section 4(c) of the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1843(c)) solely outside of the
United States shall not be subject to the prohibitions and
restrictions under paragraph (1), provided that the company
is not directly or indirectly controlled by a company that is
organized under the laws of the United States or of a State.
(3) Exception.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an insured
depository institution, a company that controls, directly or
indirectly, an insured depository institution or is treated
as a bank holding company for purposes of the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.), or any
subsidiary of such institution or company may sponsor or
invest in a hedge fund or a private equity fund, if--
(A) such institution, company, or subsidiary provides
trust, fiduciary, or advisory services to the fund;
(B) the fund is sponsored and offered in connection with
the provision of trust, fiduciary, or advisory services by
such institution, company, or subsidiary to persons who are,
or may be, customers or clients of such institution, company,
or subsidiary;
(C) such institution, company, or subsidiary--
(i) does not acquire or retain an equity, partnership, or
ownership interest in the fund; or
(ii) acquires or retains an equity, partnership, or
ownership interest, if--
(I) on the date that is 12 months after the date on which
the fund is established, the equity, partnership, or
ownership interest is not greater than 5 percent of the total
equity of the fund; and
(II) the aggregate equity investments by such institution,
company, or subsidiary in the fund do not exceed 5 percent of
Tier 1 capital of such institution, company, or subsidiary;
(D) such institution, company, or subsidiary does not enter
into or otherwise engage in any transaction with the fund
that is a covered transaction, as defined in section 23A of
the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c), except on terms and
under circumstances specified in section 23B of the Federal
Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c-1);
(E) the obligations of the fund are not guaranteed,
directly or indirectly, by such institution, company, or
subsidiary any affiliate of such institution, company, or
subsidiary; and
(F) such institution, company, or subsidiary does not share
with the fund, for corporate, marketing, promotional, or
other purposes, the same name or a variation of the same
name.
______
SA 4061. Mr. CHAMBLISS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself
and Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial
stability of the United States by improving accountability and
transparency in the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to
protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers
from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
Beginning on page 539, strike line 14 and all that follows
through page 584, line 7, and insert the following:
[[Page 8345]]
``(33) Major swap participant.--
``(A) In general.--The term `major swap participant' means
any person who is not a swap dealer, and--
``(i)(I) maintains a substantial net position in swaps for
any of the major swap categories as determined by the
Commission, excluding--
``(aa) positions held for hedging or mitigating commercial
risk, including operating risk and balance sheet risk, of
such person or its affiliates; and
``(bb) positions maintained by any employee benefit plan
(or any contract held by such a plan) as defined in
paragraphs (3) and (32) of section 3 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002) for
the primary purpose of hedging or mitigating any risk
directly associated with the operation of the plan; and
``(II) whose outstanding swaps create substantial net
counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects
on the financial stability of the United States banking
system or financial markets; or
``(ii)(I) is a financial entity, other than an entity
predominantly engaged in providing customer financing for the
purchase of an affiliate's merchandise or manufactured goods,
that is highly leveraged relative to the amount of capital it
holds;
``(II) maintains a substantial net position in outstanding
swaps in any major swap category as determined by the
Commission; and
``(III) whose outstanding swaps create substantial net
counterparty exposure that could have serious adverse effects
on the financial stability of the United States banking
system or financial markets.
``(B) Definition of substantial net position.--For purposes
of subparagraph (A), the Commission shall define by rule or
regulation the term `substantial net position' to mean a
position after application of legally enforceable netting or
collateral arrangements that meets a threshold the Commission
determines to be prudent for the effective monitoring,
management, and oversight of entities that are systemically
important or can significantly impact the financial system of
the United States.
``(C) Scope of designation.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), a person may be designated as a major swap participant
for 1 or more categories of swaps without being classified as
a major swap participant for all classes of swaps.
``(D) Capital.--In setting capital requirements for a
person that is designated as a major swap participant for a
single type or single class or category of swaps or
activities, the prudential regulator and the Commission shall
take into account the risks associated with other types of
swaps or classes of swaps or categories of swaps engaged in
by virtue of the status of the person as a major swap
participant.'';
(17) by inserting after paragraph (38) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(39) Prudential regulator.--The term `prudential
regulator' means--
``(A) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, in the
case of--
``(i) any national banking association;
``(ii) any Federal branch or agency of a foreign bank; or
``(iii) any Federal savings association;
``(B) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, in the
case of--
``(i) any insured State bank;
``(ii) any foreign bank having an insured branch; or
``(iii) any State savings association;
``(C) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
in the case of--
``(i) any noninsured State member bank;
``(ii) any branch or agency of a foreign bank with respect
to any provision of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 221 et
seq.) which is made applicable under the International
Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.);
``(iii) any foreign bank which does not operate an insured
branch;
``(iv) any agency or commercial lending company other than
a Federal agency; or
``(v) supervisory or regulatory proceedings arising from
the authority given to the Board of Governors under section
7(c)(1) of the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C.
3105(c)(1)), including such proceedings under the Financial
Institutions Supervisory Act of 1966 (12 U.S.C. 1464 et
seq.); and
``(D) the Farm Credit Administration, in the case of a swap
dealer, major swap participant, security-based swap dealer,
or major security-based swap participant that is an
institution chartered under the Farm Credit Act of 1971 (12
U.S.C. 2001 et seq.).'';
(18) in paragraph (40) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking subparagraph (B);
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E) as
subparagraphs (B), (C), and (F), respectively;
(C) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated), by striking
``and'';
(D) by inserting after subparagraph (C) (as so
redesignated) the following:
``(D) a swap execution facility registered under section
5h;
``(E) a swap data repository; and'';
(19) by inserting after paragraph (41) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(42) Security-based swap.--The term `security-based swap'
has the meaning given the term in section 3(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)).
``(43) Security-based swap dealer.--The term `security-
based swap dealer' has the meaning given the term in section
3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78c(a)).'';
(20) in paragraph (46) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
by striking ``subject to section 2(h)(7)'' and inserting
``subject to section 2(h)(5)'';
(21) by inserting after paragraph (46) (as redesignated by
paragraph (1)) the following:
``(47) Swap.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the term `swap' means any agreement, contract, or
transaction--
``(i) that is a put, call, cap, floor, collar, or similar
option of any kind that is for the purchase or sale, or based
on the value, of 1 or more interest or other rates,
currencies, commodities, securities, instruments of
indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, or other
financial or economic interests or property of any kind;
``(ii) that provides for any purchase, sale, payment, or
delivery (other than a dividend on an equity security) that
is dependent on the occurrence, nonoccurrence, or the extent
of the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with
a potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence;
``(iii) that provides on an executory basis for the
exchange, on a fixed or contingent basis, of 1 or more
payments based on the value or level of 1 or more interest or
other rates, currencies, commodities, securities, instruments
of indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures, or other
financial or economic interests or property of any kind, or
any interest therein or based on the value thereof, and that
transfers, as between the parties to the transaction, in
whole or in part, the financial risk associated with a future
change in any such value or level without also conveying a
current or future direct or indirect ownership interest in an
asset (including any enterprise or investment pool) or
liability that incorporates the financial risk so
transferred, including any agreement, contract, or
transaction commonly known as--
``(I) an interest rate swap;
``(II) a rate floor;
``(III) a rate cap;
``(IV) a rate collar;
``(V) a cross-currency rate swap;
``(VI) a basis swap;
``(VII) a currency swap;
``(VIII) a foreign exchange swap;
``(IX) a total return swap;
``(X) an equity index swap;
``(XI) an equity swap;
``(XII) a debt index swap;
``(XIII) a debt swap;
``(XIV) a credit spread;
``(XV) a credit default swap;
``(XVI) a credit swap;
``(XVII) a weather swap;
``(XVIII) an energy swap;
``(XIX) a metal swap;
``(XX) an agricultural swap;
``(XXI) an emissions swap; and
``(XXII) a commodity swap;
``(iv) that is an agreement, contract, or transaction that
is, or in the future becomes commonly known to the trade as a
swap;
``(v) including any security-based swap agreement which
meets the definition of `swap agreement' as defined in
section 206A of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 78c
note) of which a material term is based on the price, yield,
value, or volatility of any security or any group or index of
securities, or any interest therein; or
``(vi) that is any combination or permutation of, or option
on, any agreement, contract, or transaction described in any
of clauses (i) through (v).
``(B) Exclusions.--The term `swap' does not include--
``(i) any contract of sale of a commodity for future
delivery (or option on such a contract), leverage contract
authorized under section 19, security futures product, or
agreement, contract, or transaction described in section
2(c)(2)(C)(i) or section 2(c)(2)(D)(i);
``(ii) any sale of a nonfinancial commodity or security for
deferred shipment or delivery, so long as the transaction is
intended to be physically settled;
``(iii) any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on
any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of
securities, including any interest therein or based on the
value thereof, that is subject to--
``(I) the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.);
and
``(II) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.);
``(iv) any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege
relating to a foreign currency entered into on a national
securities exchange registered pursuant to section 6(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f(a));
``(v) any agreement, contract, or transaction providing for
the purchase or sale of 1 or more securities on a fixed basis
that is subject to--
``(I) the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.);
and
``(II) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.);
``(vi) any agreement, contract, or transaction providing
for the purchase or sale of 1
[[Page 8346]]
or more securities on a contingent basis that is subject to
the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.),
unless the agreement, contract, or transaction predicates the
purchase or sale on the occurrence of a bona fide contingency
that might reasonably be expected to affect or be affected by
the creditworthiness of a party other than a party to the
agreement, contract, or transaction;
``(vii) any note, bond, or evidence of indebtedness that is
a security, as defined in section 2(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77b(a));
``(viii) any agreement, contract, or transaction that is--
``(I) based on a security; and
``(II) entered into directly or through an underwriter (as
defined in section 2(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15
U.S.C. 77b(a))) by the issuer of such security for the
purposes of raising capital, unless the agreement, contract,
or transaction is entered into to manage a risk associated
with capital raising;
``(ix) any agreement, contract, or transaction a
counterparty of which is a Federal Reserve bank, the Federal
Government, or a Federal agency that is expressly backed by
the full faith and credit of the United States; and
``(x) any security-based swap, other than a security-based
swap as described in subparagraph (D).
``(C) Rule of construction regarding master agreements.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
term `swap' includes a master agreement that provides for an
agreement, contract, or transaction that is a swap under
subparagraph (A), together with each supplement to any master
agreement, without regard to whether the master agreement
contains an agreement, contract, or transaction that is not a
swap pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Exception.--For purposes of clause (i), the master
agreement shall be considered to be a swap only with respect
to each agreement, contract, or transaction covered by the
master agreement that is a swap pursuant to subparagraph (A).
``(D) Mixed swap.--The term `security-based swap' includes
any agreement, contract, or transaction that is as described
in section 3(a)(68)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(68)(A)) and also is based on the value of 1
or more interest or other rates, currencies, commodities,
instruments of indebtedness, indices, quantitative measures,
other financial or economic interest or property of any kind
(other than a single security or a narrow-based security
index), or the occurrence, non-occurrence, or the extent of
the occurrence of an event or contingency associated with a
potential financial, economic, or commercial consequence
(other than an event described in subparagraph (A)(iii)).
``(E) Treatment of foreign exchange swaps and forwards.--
``(i) In general.--Foreign exchange swaps and foreign
exchange forwards shall be considered swaps under this
paragraph unless the Secretary makes a written determination
that either foreign exchange swaps or foreign exchange
forwards or both--
``(I) should be not be regulated as swaps under this Act;
and
``(II) are not structured to evade the Wall Street
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010 in violation of
any rule promulgated by the Commission pursuant to section
111(c) of that Act.
``(ii) Congressional notice; effectiveness.--The Secretary
shall submit any written determination under clause (i) to
the appropriate committees of Congress, including the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the
Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the House of
Representatives. Any such written determination by the
Secretary shall not be effective until it is submitted to the
appropriate committees of Congress.
``(iii) Reporting.--Notwithstanding a written determination
by the Secretary under clause (i), all foreign exchange swaps
and foreign exchange forwards shall be reported to either a
swap data repository, or, if there is no swap data repository
that would accept such swaps or forwards, to the Commission
pursuant to section 4r within such time period as the
Commission may by rule or regulation prescribe.
``(iv) Business standards.--Notwithstanding clauses (ix)
and (x) of subparagraph (B) and clause (ii), any party to a
foreign exchange swap or forward that is a swap dealer or
major swap participant shall conform to the business conduct
standards contained in section 4s(h).
``(v) Secretary.--For purposes of this subparagraph only,
the term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.
``(F) Exception for certain foreign exchange swaps and
forwards.--
``(i) Registered entities.--Any foreign exchange swap and
any foreign exchange forward that is listed and traded on or
subject to the rules of a designated contract market or a
swap execution facility, or that is cleared by a derivatives
clearing organization shall not be exempt from any provision
of this Act or amendments made by the Wall Street
Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010 prohibiting fraud
or manipulation.
``(ii) Retail transactions.--Nothing in subparagraph (E)
shall affect, or be construed to affect, the applicability of
this Act or the jurisdiction of the Commission with respect
to agreements, contracts, or transactions in foreign currency
pursuant to section 2(c)(2).
``(48) Swap data repository.--The term `swap data
repository' means any person that collects, calculates,
prepares, or maintains information or records with respect to
transactions or positions in, or the terms and conditions of,
swaps entered into by third parties.
``(49) Swap dealer.--
``(A) In general.--The term `swap dealer' means any person
who--
``(i) holds itself out as a dealer in swaps;
``(ii) makes a market in swaps;
``(iii) regularly engages in the purchase and sale of swaps
to customers as its ordinary course of business; and
``(iv) engages in any activity causing the person to be
commonly known in the trade as a dealer or market maker in
swaps.
``(B) Inclusion.--A person may be designated as a swap
dealer for a single type or single class or category of swap
or activities and considered not to be a swap dealer for
other types, classes, or categories of swaps or activities.
``(C) Capital.--In setting capital requirements for a
person that is designated as a swap dealer for a single type
or single class or category of swap or activities, the
prudential regulator and the Commission shall take into
account the risks associated with other types of swaps or
classes of swaps or categories of swaps engaged in by virtue
of the status of the person as a swap dealer.
``(D) Exception.--The term `swap dealer' does not include a
person that buys or sells swaps for such person's own
account, either individually or in a fiduciary capacity, or
on behalf of any affiliates of such person, unless it does so
as a market maker and as a part of a regular business.
``(50) Swap execution facility.--The term `swap execution
facility' means a facility in which multiple participants
have the ability to execute or trade swaps by accepting bids
and offers made by other participants that are open to
multiple participants in the facility or system, through any
means of interstate commerce, including any trading facility,
that--
``(A) facilitates the execution of swaps between persons;
and
``(B) is not a designated contract market.''; and
(22) in paragraph (51) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)),
in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``partipants'' and
inserting ``participants''.
(b) Authority to Define Terms.--The Commodity Futures
Trading Commission may adopt a rule to define--
(1) the term ``commercial risk''; and
(2) any other term included in an amendment to the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) made by this
subtitle.
(c) Modification of Definitions.--To include transactions
and entities that have been structured to evade this subtitle
(or an amendment made by this subtitle), the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission shall adopt a rule to further
define the terms ``swap'', ``swap dealer'', ``major swap
participant'', and ``eligible contract participant''.
(d) Exemptions.--Section 4(c)(1) of the Commodity Exchange
Act (7 U.S.C. 6(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``except that''
and all that follows through the period at the end and
inserting the following: ``except that--
``(A) unless the Commission is expressly authorized by any
provision described in this subparagraph to grant exemptions,
with respect to amendments made by subtitle A of the Wall
Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010--
``(i) with respect to--
``(I) paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), and (7), clause
(vii)(III) of paragraph (17), paragraphs (23), (24), (31),
(32), (38), (39), (41), (42), (46), (47), (48), and (49) of
section 1a, and sections 2(a)(13), 2(c)(D), 4a(a), 4a(b),
4d(c), 4d(d), 4r, 4s, 5b(a), 5b(b), 5(d), 5(g), 5(h), 5b(c),
5b(i), 8e, and 21; and
``(II) section 206(e) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Public
Law 106-102; 15 U.S.C. 78c note); and
``(ii) in subsection (c) of section 111 and section 132;
and
``(B) the Commission and the Securities and Exchange
Commission may by rule, regulation, or order jointly exclude
any agreement, contract, or transaction from section
2(a)(1)(D)) if the Commission determines that the exemption
would be consistent with the public interest.''.
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Commodity Exchange Act
(7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(B)(i)(II)) is amended--
(A) in item (cc)--
(i) in subitem (AA), by striking ``section 1a(20)'' and
inserting ``section 1a''; and
(ii) in subitem (BB), by striking ``section 1a(20)'' and
inserting ``section 1a''; and
(B) in item (dd), by striking ``section 1a(12)(A)(ii)'' and
inserting ``section 1a(18)(A)(ii)''.
(2) Section 4m(3) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C.
6m(3)) is amended by striking ``section 1a(6)'' and inserting
``section 1a''.
[[Page 8347]]
(3) Section 4q(a)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 6o-1(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 1a(4)''
and inserting ``section 1a(9)''.
(4) Section 5(e)(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C.
7(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``section 1a(4)'' and
inserting ``section 1a(9)''.
(5) Section 5a(b)(2)(F) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 7a(b)(2)(F)) is amended by striking ``section 1a(4)''
and inserting ``section 1a(9)''.
(6) Section 5b(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C.
7a-1(a)) is amended, in the matter preceding paragraph (1),
by striking ``section 1a(9)'' and inserting ``section 1a''.
(7) Section 5c(c)(2)(B) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 7a-2(c)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``section
1a(4)'' and inserting ``section 1a(9)''.
(8) Section 6(g)(5)(B)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78f(g)(5)(B)(i)) is amended--
(A) in subclause (I), by striking ``section 1a(12)(B)(ii)''
and inserting ``section 1a(18)(B)(ii)''; and
(B) in subclause (II), by striking ``section 1a(12)'' and
inserting ``section 1a(18)''.
(9) The Legal Certainty for Bank Products Act of 2000 (7
U.S.C. 27 et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 402--
(i) in subsection (a)(7), by striking ``section 1a(20)''
and inserting ``section 1a'';
(ii) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``section 1a(12)''
and inserting ``section 1a'';
(iii) in subsection (c), by striking ``section 1a(4)'' and
inserting ``section 1a''; and
(iv) in subsection (d)--
(I) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``section 1a(4)'' and inserting ``section 1a(9)'';
(II) in paragraph (1)--
(aa) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 1a(12)''
and inserting ``section 1a''; and
(bb) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``section 1a(33)''
and inserting ``section 1a'';
(III) in paragraph (2)--
(aa) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``section 1a(10)''
and inserting ``section 1a'';
(bb) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``section
1a(12)(B)(ii)'' and inserting ``section 1a(18)(B)(ii)'';
(cc) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``section 1a(12)''
and inserting ``section 1a(18)''; and
(dd) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``section 1a(13)''
and inserting ``section 1a''; and
(B) in section 404(1), by striking ``section 1a(4)'' and
inserting ``section 1a''.
SEC. 722. JURISDICTION.
(a) Exclusive Jurisdiction.--Section 2(a)(1)(A) of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2(a)(1)(A)) is amended in
the first sentence--
(1) by inserting ``the Wall Street Transparency and
Accountability Act of 2010 (including an amendment made by
that Act) and'' after ``otherwise provided in'';
(2) by striking ``(c) through (i) of this section'' and
inserting ``(c) and (f)'';
(3) by striking ``contracts of sale'' and inserting ``swaps
or contracts of sale''; and
(4) by striking ``or derivatives transaction execution
facility registered pursuant to section 5 or 5a'' and
inserting ``pursuant to section 5''.
(b) Regulation of Swaps Under Federal and State Law.--
Section 12 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 16) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Regulation of Swaps as Insurance Under State Law.--A
swap--
``(1) shall not be considered to be insurance; and
``(2) may not be regulated as an insurance contract under
the law of any State.''.
(c) Agreements, Contracts, and Transactions Traded on an
Organized Exchange.--Section 2(c)(2)(A) of the Commodity
Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2(c)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); and
(3) by inserting after clause (i) the following:
``(ii) a swap; or''.
(d) Applicability.--Section 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act
(7 U.S.C. 2) (as amended by section 723(a)(3)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Applicability.--The provisions of this Act relating
to swaps that were enacted by the Wall Street Transparency
and Accountability Act of 2010 (including any rule prescribed
or regulation promulgated under that Act), shall not apply to
activities outside the United States unless those
activities--
``(1) have a direct and significant connection with
activities in, or effect on, commerce of the United States;
or
``(2) contravene such rules or regulations as the
Commission may prescribe or promulgate as are necessary or
appropriate to prevent the evasion of any provision of this
Act that was enacted by the Wall Street Transparency and
Accountability Act of 2010.''.
SEC. 723. CLEARING.
(a) Clearing Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Section 2 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7
U.S.C. 2) is amended--
(A) by striking subsections (d), (e), (g), and (h); and
(B) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (g).
(2) Swaps; limitation on participation.--Section 2 of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2) (as amended by paragraph
(1)) is amended by inserting after subsection (c) the
following:
``(d) Swaps.--Nothing in this Act (other than subparagraphs
(A), (B), (C), and (D) of subsection (a)(1), subsections (f)
and (g), sections 1a, 2(c)(2)(A)(ii), 2(e), 2(h), 4(c), 4a,
4b, and 4b-1, subsections (a), (b), and (g) of section 4c,
sections 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g, 4h, 4i, 4j, 4k, 4l, 4m, 4n, 4o, 4p,
4r, 4s, 4t, 5, 5b, 5c, 5e, and 5h, subsections (c) and (d) of
section 6, sections 6c, 6d, 8, 8a, and 9, subsections (e)(2)
and (f) of section 12, subsections (a) and (b) of section 13,
sections 17, 20, 21, and 22(a)(4), and any other provision of
this Act that is applicable to registered entities and
Commission registrants) governs or applies to a swap.
``(e) Limitation on Participation.--It shall be unlawful
for any person, other than an eligible contract participant,
to enter into a swap unless the swap is entered into on, or
subject to the rules of, a board of trade designated as a
contract market under section 5.''.
(3) Mandatory clearing of swaps.--Section 2 of the
Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 2) is amended by inserting
after subsection (g) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)(B))
the following:
``(h) Clearing Requirement.--
``(1) Open access.--The rules of a registered derivatives
clearing organization shall--
``(A) prescribe that all swaps with the same terms and
conditions are economically equivalent and may be offset with
each other within the derivatives clearing organization; and
``(B) provide for nondiscriminatory clearing of a swap
executed bilaterally or on or through the rules of an
unaffiliated designated contract market or swap execution
facility, subject to the requirements of section 5b.
``(2) Swaps subject to mandatory clearing requirement.--
``(A) In general.--In accordance with subparagraph (B), the
Commission shall, jointly with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, adopt
rules to establish criteria for determining that a swap or
group, category, type, or class of swap is required to be
cleared.
``(B) Factors.--In carrying out subparagraph (A), the
following factors shall be considered:
``(i) Whether 1 or more derivatives clearing organizations
or clearing agencies accepts the swap or group, category,
type, or class of swap for clearing.
``(ii) Whether the swap or group, category, type, or class
of swap is traded pursuant to standard documentation and
terms.
``(iii) The liquidity of the swap or group, category, type,
or class of swap and its underlying commodity, security,
security of a reference entity, or group or index thereof.
``(iv) The ability to value the swap or group, category,
type, or class of swap and its underlying commodity,
security, security of a reference entity, or group or index
thereof consistent with an accepted pricing methodology,
including the availability of intraday prices.
``(v) The size of the market for the swap or group,
category, type, or class of swap and the available capacity,
operational expertise, and resources of the derivatives
clearing organization or clearing agency that accepts it for
clearing.
``(vi) Whether a clearing mandate would mitigate risk to
the financial system or whether it would unduly concentrate
risk in a clearing participant, derivatives clearing
organization, or clearing agency in a manner that could
threaten the solvency of that clearing participant, the
derivatives clearing organization, or the clearing agency.
``(vii) Such other factors as the Commission, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve
Board of Governors jointly may determine are relevant.
``(C) Swaps subject to clearing requirement.--The
Commission--
``(i) shall review each swap, or any group, category, type,
or class of swap that is currently listed for clearing and
those which a derivatives clearing organization notifies the
Commission that the derivatives clearing organization plans
to list for clearing after the date of enactment of this
subsection;
``(ii) except as provided in paragraph (3), may require,
pursuant to the rules adopted under subparagraph (A) and
through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that a particular
swap, group, category, type, or class of swap must be
cleared; and
``(iii) shall rely on economic analysis provided by
economists of the Commission in making any determination
under clause (ii).
``(D) Effect.--
``(i) In general.--Nothing in this paragraph affects the
ability of a derivatives clearing organization to list for
permissive clearing any swap, or group, category, type, or
class of swaps.
``(ii) Prohibition.--The Commission shall not compel a
derivatives clearing organization to list a swap, group,
category, type, or class of swap for clearing if the
derivatives clearing organization determines that the
[[Page 8348]]
swap, group, category, type, or class of swap would adversely
impact its business operations, or impair the financial
integrity of the derivatives clearing organization.
``(iii) Required exemption.--The Commission shall exempt a
swap from the requirements of subparagraph (C), if no
derivatives clearing organization registered under this Act
or no derivatives clearing organization that is exempt from
registration under section 5b(j) of this Act will accept the
swap for clearing.
``(E) Prevention of evasion.--The Commission may prescribe
rules, or issue interpretations of such rules, as necessary
to prevent evasions of any requirement to clear under
subparagraph (C). In issuing such rules or interpretations,
the Commission shall consider--
``(i) the extent to which the terms of the swap, group,
category, type, or class of swap are similar to the terms of
other swaps, groups, categories, types, or classes of swap
that are required to be cleared by swap participants under
subparagraph (C); and
``(ii) whether there is an economic purpose for any
differences in the terms of the swap or group, category,
type, or class of swap that are required to be cleared by
swap participants under subparagraph (C).
``(F) Elimination of requirement to clear.--The Commission
may, pursuant to the rules adopted under subparagraph (A) and
through notice-and-comment rulemaking, rescind a requirement
imposed under subparagraph (C) with respect to a swap, group,
category, type, or class of swap.
``(G) Petition for rulemaking.--Any person may file a
petition, pursuant to the rules of practice of the
Commission, requesting that the Commission use its authority
under subparagraph (C) to require clearing of a particular
swap, group, category, type, or class of swap or to use its
authority under subparagraph (F) to rescind a requirement for
swap participants to clear a particular swap, group,
category, type, or class of swap.
``(H) Foreign exchange forwards, swaps, and options.--
Foreign exchange forwards, swaps, and options shall not be
subject to a clearing requirement under subparagraph (C)
unless the Department of the Treasury and the Board of
Governors determine that such a requirement is appropriate
after considering whether there exists an effective
settlement system for such foreign exchange forwards, swaps,
and options and any other factors that the Department of the
Treasury and the Board of Governors deem to be relevant.
``(3) End user clearing exemption.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Commercial end user.--The term `commercial end user'
means any person who, as its primary business activity owns,
operates, uses, produces, processes, develops, leases,
manufacturers, distributes, merchandises, provides or markets
goods, services, physical assets, or commodities (which shall
include but not be limited to coal, natural gas, electricity,
biofuels, crude oil, gasoline, propane, distillates, and
other hydrocarbons) either individually or in a fiduciary
capacity.
``(ii) Financial entity end user.--
``(I) In general.--The term `financial entity end user'
means any person predominately engaged in activities that are
financial in nature, as determined by the Commission.
``(II) Exclusions.--The term `financial entity end user'
does not include--
``(aa) any person who is a swap dealer, security-based swap
dealer, major swap participant, major security-based swap
participant;
``(bb) an investment fund that would be an investment
company (as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company
Act o f 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3)) but for paragraph (1) or (7)
of section 3(c) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)); and is not
a partnership or other entity or any subsidiary that is
primarily invested in physical assets (which shall include
but not be limited to commercial real estate) directly or
through interests in partnerships or limited liability
companies that own such assets;
``(cc) entities defined in section 1303(20) of the Federal
Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of
1992 (12 U.S.C. 4502(20));
``(dd) a commodity pool; or
``(ee) a commercial end user.
``(B) End user clearing exemption.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), in the event
that a swap is subject to the mandatory clearing requirement
under paragraph (2), and 1 of the counterparties to the swap
is a commercial end user or a financial entity end user, that
counterparty--
``(I)(aa) may elect not to clear the swap, as required
under paragraph (2); or
``(bb) may elect, prior to entering into the swap
transaction, to require clearing of the swap; and
``(II) if the end user makes an election under subclause
(I)(bb), shall have the sole right to select the derivatives
clearing organization at which the swap will be cleared.
``(ii) Limitation.--A commercial end user or a financial
entity end user may only make an election under clause (i) if
the end user is using the swap to hedge commercial risk,
including operating risk and balance sheet risk.
``(C) Treatment of affiliates.--
``(i) In general.--An affiliate of a commercial end user
(including affiliate entities predominantly engaged in
providing financing for the purchase of merchandise or
manufactured goods of the commercial end user) or a financial
entity end user may make an election under subparagraph
(B)(i) only if the affiliate uses the swap to hedge or
mitigate the commercial risk, including operating risk and
balance sheet risk, of the commercial end user or the
financial entity end user or other affiliate of the
commercial end user or financial entity end user.
``(ii) Prohibition relating to certain affiliates.--An
affiliate of a commercial end user or a financial entity end
user shall not use the exemption under subparagraph (B) if
the affiliate is--
``(I) a swap dealer;
``(II) a security-based swap dealer;
``(III) a major swap participant;
``(IV) a major security-based swap participant;
``(V) an investment fund that would be an investment
company (as defined in section 3 of the Investment Company
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-3)) but for paragraph (1) or (7)
of section 3(c) of that Act (15 U.S.C. 80a-3(c)); and is not
a partnership or other entity or any subsidiary that is
primarily invested in physical assets (which shall include
but not be limited to commercial real estate) directly or
through interests in partnerships or limited liability
companies that own such assets; or
``(VI) a commodity pool.
``(D) Abuse of exemption.--The Commission may prescribe
such rules or issue interpretations of the rules as the
Commission determines to be necessary to prevent abuse of the
exemption described in subparagraph (B). The Commission may
also request information from those entities claiming the
clearing exemption as necessary to prevent abuse of the
exemption described in subparagraph (B).
``(4) Required reporting.--Each swap that is not cleared by
any derivatives clearing organization shall be reported
either to a registered swap repository described in section
21 or, if there is no repository that would accept the swap,
to the Commission pursuant to section 4r.
``(5) Transition rules.--
``(A) Reporting transition rules.--The Commission shall
provide for the reporting of data, as follows:
``(i) Swaps entered into before date of enactment of this
subsection.--Swaps entered into before the date of the
enactment of this subsection shall be reported to a
registered swap repository or the Commission not later than
180 days after the effective date of this subsection.
``(ii) Swaps entered into on or after date of enactment of
this subsection.--Swaps entered into on or after such date of
enactment shall be reported to a registered swap repository
or the Commission not later than such time period as the
Commission prescribe.
``(B) Clearing transition rules.--Swaps entered into before
the effective date of any requirement under paragraph (2)(C)
are exempt from the clearing requirements of this subsection.
``(6) Reporting obligations.--
``(A) Swaps in which only 1 counterparty is a swap dealer
or major swap participant.--With respect to a swap in which
only 1 counterparty is a swap dealer or major swap
participant, the swap dealer or major swap participant shall
report the swap as required under paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(B) Swaps in which 1 counterparty is a swap dealer and
the other a major swap participant.--With respect to a swap
in which 1 counterparty is a swap dealer and the other a
major swap participant, the swap dealer shall report the swap
as required under paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(C) Other swaps.--With respect to any other swap not
described in subparagraph (A) or (B), the counterparties to
the swap shall select a counterparty to report the swap as
required under paragraphs (4) and (5).
``(7) Trade execution.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to transactions involving
swaps subject to the clearing requirement established under
paragraph (2), counterparties shall--
``(i) execute the transaction on a board of trade
designated as a contract market under section 5; or
``(ii) execute the transaction on a swap execution facility
registered under section 5h or a swap execution facility that
is exempt from registration under section 5h(f).
``(B) Exception.--The requirements of clauses (i) and (ii)
of subparagraph (A) shall not apply if no board of trade or
swap execution facility makes the swap available to trade or
in the case of a swap transaction for which a commercial end
or financial entity user opts to use the clearing exemption
under paragraph (3).
``(8) Required exemption.--The Commission shall exempt a
swap from the requirements of this subsection and any rules
issued under this subsection, if no derivatives clearing
organization registered under this Act or no derivatives
clearing organization that is exempt from registration under
section 5b(j) will accept the swap from clearing.''.
[[Page 8349]]
______
SA 4062. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3739 proposed by Mr. Reid (for Mr. Dodd (for himself and
Mrs. Lincoln)) to the bill S. 3217, to promote the financial stability
of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in
the financial system, to end ``too big to fail'', to protect the
American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive
financial services practices, and for other purposes; which was ordered
to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 1204, line 25, strike ``or'' and all that follows
through page 1205, line 4 and insert the following:
(ii) time or space for an advertisement for a consumer
financial product or service through print, newspaper, or
electronic media;
(iii) information products or services for identity
authentication, fraud, or identity theft detection,
prevention, or investigation, or anti-money laundering
activities, unless such products or services are regulated
under the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.);
or
(iv) public records information or document retrieval or
delivery services, unless such products or services are
regulated under the Bank Service Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1861
et seq.).
____________________
NOTICE OF HEARING
committee on rules and administration
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on
Rules and Administration will meet on Wednesday, May 19, 2010, at 10
a.m., to hear testimony on hearing entitled ``Examining the Filibuster:
The Filibuster Today and Its Consequences.''
For further information regarding this meeting, please contact Lynden
Armstrong at the Rules and Administration Committee on 202-224-6352.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized
to meet during the session of the Senate on May 17, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.
to conduct a hearing entitled ``Gulf Coast Catastrophe: Assessing the
Nation's Response to the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on homeland security and governmental affairs
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized
to meet during the session of the Senate May 17, 2010, at 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NATIONAL FOSTER CARE MONTH CHALLENGES
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 533, submitted early
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 533) recognizing National Foster Care
Month as an opportunity to raise awareness about the
challenges of children in the foster care system and
encouraging Congress to implement policy to improve the lives
of children in the foster care system.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 533) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 533
Whereas all children deserve a safe, loving, and permanent
home;
Whereas approximately 500,000 children in the United States
live in foster care each year;
Whereas children enter the foster care system for a variety
of reasons, including inadequate care, abuse, or neglect by a
parent or guardian;
Whereas the major factors that contribute to the placement
of a child in the foster care system include substance abuse,
mental illness, poverty, and a lack of education of a parent
or guardian of the child;
Whereas a child entering the foster care system must
confront the widespread misperception that children in foster
care are disruptive, unruly, and dangerous, even though
placement in the foster care system is based on the actions
of a parent or guardian, not the child;
Whereas States and communities should be provided with the
resources to invest in preventative and reunification
services and post-permanency programs to ensure that more
children in the foster care system are provided safe, loving,
permanent placements;
Whereas the foster care system is intended to be a
temporary solution, yet children remain in the foster care
system for an average of 3 years;
Whereas children of color are disproportionately
represented in the foster care system and are less likely to
be reunited with their biological families;
Whereas the average child in the foster care system--
(1) is 10 years old; and
(2) will be placed in 3 different homes, leading to
disruptive transfers to new schools, separation from
siblings, and unfamiliar surroundings;
Whereas most children ``age out'' of the foster care system
at the age of 18;
Whereas the number of children who enter the foster care
system each year has declined over the decade preceding the
date of the agreement to this resolution, but the number of
children who ``age out'' of the foster care system without
placement with a permanent family has increased
substantially, rising from 20,000 children in 2002 to 29,000
children in 2008;
Whereas children who ``age out'' of the foster care system
lack the security or support of a biological or adoptive
family and frequently struggle to secure affordable housing,
obtain health insurance, pursue higher education, and acquire
adequate employment;
Whereas, of the children who have ``aged out'' of the
foster care system--
(1) 25 percent have been homeless;
(2) 51 percent have been unemployed for significant stretch
of time, and
(3) only 2 percent have obtained a bachelor's degree or
higher;
Whereas, by age 19, approximately 50 percent of young women
who have been in the foster care system have been pregnant,
compared to only 20 percent of young women who have been not
in the foster care system;
Whereas research reveals that children born to teen parents
are exposed to serious and high risks;
Whereas National Foster Care Month is an opportunity to
raise awareness about the special needs of children in the
foster care system and to recognize the important role that
foster parents, social workers, and advocates have in the
lives of children in foster care throughout the United
States;
Whereas the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing
Adoptions Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-351; 122 Stat. 3949)
provides for new investments and services to improve the
outcomes of children and families in the foster care system;
and
Whereas much remains to be done to ensure that all children
have a safe, loving, nurturing, and permanent family,
regardless of age or special needs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes National Foster Care Month as an opportunity
to raise awareness about the challenges of children in the
foster care system;
(2) encourages Congress to implement policy to improve the
lives of children in the foster care system;
(3) supports the designation of a ``National Foster Care
Month'';
(4) acknowledges the needs of the children in the foster
care system;
(5) honors the commitment and dedication of those
individuals who work tirelessly to provide assistance and
services to children in the foster care system; and
(6) recognizes the need to continue working to improve the
outcomes of all children in the foster care system through
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
and other programs designed to help children in the foster
care system--
(A) reunite with their biological parents; or
(B) if the children cannot be reunited with their
biological parents, find permanent, safe, and loving homes.
____________________
ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, MAY 18, 2010
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May
18;
[[Page 8350]]
that following the prayer and the pledge, the Journal of proceedings be
approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the
two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business for 1 hour, with Senators
permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time
equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their
designees, with the majority controlling the first half and the
Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning
business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 3217, Wall Street
reform, as provided under the previous order; that the Senate recess
from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. for the weekly caucus luncheons; that the
filing deadline for first-degree amendments be 12 noon tomorrow.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorums under rule
XXII be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, under the previous order, there will be at
least one rollcall vote at approximately 11:45 a.m. That will be in
relation to the Gregg amendment No. 4051.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it adjourn under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:55 p.m., adjourned until
Tuesday, May 18, 2010, at 10 a.m.
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nomination received by the Senate:
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
JOHN S. PISTOLE, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF HOMELAND SECURITY, VICE EDMUND S. HAWLEY, RESIGNED.
[[Page 8351]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Tuesday, May 18, 2010 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.
MEETINGS SCHEDULED
MAY 19
9:30 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine the proposed Constitution of
the U.S. Virgin Islands, S. 2941, to provide
supplemental ex gratia compensation to the Republic of
the Marshall Islands for impacts of the nuclear testing
program of the United States, H.R. 3940, to amend
Public Law 96-597 to clarify the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior to extend grants and other
assistance to facilitate political status public
education programs for the peoples of the non-self-
governing territories of the United States, and H.R.
2499, to provide for a federally sanctioned self-
determination process for the people of Puerto Rico.
SD-366
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine S. 1780, to amend title 38,
United States Code, to deem certain service in the
reserve components as active service for purposes of
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
S. 1866, to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for the eligibility of parents of certain
deceased veterans for interment in national cemeteries,
S. 1939, to amend title 38, United States Code, to
clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of
certain veterans who served in the vicinity of the
Republic of Vietnam, S. 1940, to require the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to carry out a study on the effects
on children of exposure of their parents to herbicides
used in support of the United States and allied
military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during
the Vietnam era, S. 2751, to designate the Department
of Veterans Affairs medical center in Big Spring,
Texas, as the George H. O'Brien, Jr., Department of
Veterans Medical Center, S. 3035, to require a report
on the establishment of a Polytrauma Rehabilitation
Center or Polytrauma Network Site of the Department of
Veterans Affairs in the northern Rockies or Dakotas, S.
3107, to amend title 38 , United States Code, to
provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2010, in
the rates of compensation for veterans with service-
connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and
indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain
disabled veterans, S. 3192, to amend title 38, United
States Code, to provide for the tolling of the timing
of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board
of Veterans' Appeals, S. 3234, to improve employment,
training, and placement services furnished to veterans,
especially those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom, S. 3286, to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot
program on the award of grants to State and local
government agencies and nonprofit organizations to
provide assistance to veterans with their submittal of
claims to the Veterans Benefits Administration, S.
3314, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and
the Appalachian Regional Commission to carry out a
program of outreach for veterans who reside in
Appalachia, S. 3325, to amend title 38, United States
Code, to authorize the waiver of the collection of
copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of
veterans, S. 3330, to amend title 38, United States
Code, to make certain improvements in the
administration of medical facilities of the Department
of Veterans Affairs, S. 3348, to amend title 38, United
States Code, to provide for the treatment of documents
that express disagreement with decisions of the Board
of Veterans' Appeals and that are misfiled with the
Board within 120 days of such decisions as motions for
reconsideration of such decisions, S. 3352, to amend
title 38, United States Code, to exempt reimbursements
of expenses related to accident, theft, loss, or
casualty loss from determinations of annual income with
respect to pensions for veterans and surviving spouses
and children of veterans, S. 3355, to provide for an
Internet website for information on benefits, resource,
services, and opportunities for veterans and their
families and caregivers, S. 3367, to amend title 38,
United States Code, to increase the rate of pension for
disabled veterans who are married to one another and
both of whom require regular aid and attendance, S.
3368, to amend title 38, United States Code, to
authorize certain individuals to sign claims filed with
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on behalf of
claimants, and S. 3370, to amend title 38, United
States Code, to improve the process by which an
individual files jointly for social security and
dependency and indemnity compensation.
SR-418
10 a.m.
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine empowering Haiti to rebuild
better.
SD-419
Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine renewing America's commitment
to the refugee convention, focusing on the Refugee
Protection Act of 2010.
SD-226
Rules and Administration
To resume hearings to examine the filibuster, focusing on
the filibuster today and its consequences.
SR-301
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Marie
Collins Johns, of the District of Columbia, to be
Deputy Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
SR-428A
11 a.m.
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
To hold hearings to examine the Small Business
Administration (SBA) Disaster Assistance Program and
the impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill on small
businesses.
SR-428A
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine S. 3302, to amend title 49,
United States Code, to establish new automobile safety
standards, make better motor vehicle safety information
available to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and the public.
SR-253
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine the history and lessons of
the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).
SD-419
Energy and Natural Resources
National Parks Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine S. 349, to establish the
Susquehanna Gateway National Heritage Area in the State
of Pennsylvania, S. 1596, to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to acquire the Gold Hill Ranch in Coloma,
California, S. 1651, to modify a land grant patent
issued by the Secretary of the Interior, S. 1750, to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study of the General of the Army
George Catlett Marshall National Historic Site at
Dodona Manor in Leesburg, Virginia, S. 1801, to
establish the First State National Historical Park in
the State of Delaware, S. 1802 and H.R. 685, bills to
require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
special resource study regarding the proposed United
States Civil Rights Trail, S. 2953 and H.R. 3388, bills
to modify the boundary of Petersburg National
[[Page 8352]]
Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Virginia, S. 2976,
to designate as wilderness certain land and inland
water within the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore
in the State of Michigan, S. 3159 and H.R. 4395, bills
to revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National
Military Park to include the Gettysburg Train Station,
S. 3168, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
acquire certain non-Federal land in the State of
Pennsylvania for inclusion in the Fort Necessity
National Battlefield, and S. 3303, to establish the
Chimney Rock National Monument in the State of
Colorado.
SD-366
3:30 p.m.
Appropriations
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the President's proposed
budget request for fiscal year 2011 for the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro).
SD-138
MAY 20
9:30 a.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
To hold hearings to examine S. 2921, to provide for the
conservation, enhanced recreation opportunities, and
development of renewable energy in the California
Desert Conservation Area, to require the Secretary of
the Interior to designate certain offices to serve as
Renewable Energy Coordination Offices for coordination
of Federal permits for renewable energy projects and
transmission lines to integrate renewable energy
development.
SD-366
Environment and Public Works
Business meeting to consider S. 3362, to amend the Clean
Air Act to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to provide competitive
grants to publicly funded schools to implement
effective technologies to reduce air pollutants (as
defined in section 302 of the Clean Air Act), including
greenhouse gas emissions, in accordance with that Act,
S. 3250, to provide for the training of Federal
building personnel, S. 3372, to modify the date on
which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency and applicable States may require permits for
discharges from certain vessels, S. 3363, to amend the
Water Resources Research Act of 1984 to reauthorize
grants for and require applied water supply research
regarding the water resources research and technology
institutes established under that Act, S. 3374, to
amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to establish a
grant program to revitalize brownfield sites for the
purpose of locating renewable electricity generation
facilities on those sites, S. 3373, to address the
health and economic development impacts of
nonattainment of federally mandated air quality
standards in the San Joaquin Valley, California, by
designating air quality empowerment zones, H.R. 4275,
to designate the annex building under construction for
the Elbert P. Tuttle United States Court of Appeals
Building in Atlanta, Georgia, as the ``John C. Godbold
Federal Building'', S. 3248, to designate the
Department of the Interior Building in Washington,
District of Columbia, as the ``Stewart Lee Udall
Department of the Interior Building'', an original bill
entitled, ``Pollution and Costs Reduction Act'', and a
proposed resolution relating to the General Services
Administration.
SD-406
Foreign Relations
To hold hearings to examine the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), focusing on a report of the group
of experts.
SD-419
10 a.m.
Judiciary
Business meeting to consider S. 193, to create and extend
certain temporary district court judgeships, H.R. 4506,
to authorize the appointment of additional bankruptcy
judges, H.R. 1933, to direct the Attorney General to
make an annual grant to the A Child Is Missing Alert
and Recovery Center to assist law enforcement agencies
in the rapid recovery of missing children, and the
nominations of Robert Neil Chatigny, of Connecticut, to
be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit,
John A. Gibney, Jr., to be United States District Judge
for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Stephanie A.
Finley, to be United States Attorney for the Western
District of Louisiana, Scott Jerome Parker, to be
United States Marshal for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, and Darryl Keith McPherson, to be United
States Marshal for the Northern District of Illinois,
all of the Department of Justice.
SD-226
Appropriations
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee
To hold joint hearings to examine the progress in ending
veterans' homelessness.
SD-124
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Securities, Insurance and Investment Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the causes and lessons of the
May 6th market plunge.
SD-538
10:30 a.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Contracting Oversight Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine counternarcotics contracts in
Latin America.
SD-342
2 p.m.
Appropriations
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine investing in mine safety,
focusing on preventing another disaster.
SD-106
2:30 p.m.
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Carl
Wieman, of Colorado, to be an Associate Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy.
SR-253
Finance
Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine clean technology
manufacturing competitiveness, focusing on the role of
tax incentives.
SD-215
Appropriations
Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the President's proposed
budget request for fiscal year 2011 for the Federal
Trade Commission.
SD-192
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce,
and the District of Columbia Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine efforts to right-size the
Federal employee-to-contractor mix.
SD-342
Intelligence
To hold closed hearings to consider certain intelligence
matters.
SH-219
MAY 25
9 a.m.
Armed Services
Airland Subcommittee
Closed business meeting to markup those provisions which
fall under the subcommittee's jurisdiction of the
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2011.
SR-222
10:30 a.m.
Armed Services
Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee
Closed business meeting to markup those provisions which
fall under the subcommittee's jurisdiction of the
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2011.
SR-222
2 p.m.
Armed Services
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee
Closed business meeting to markup those provisions which
fall under the subcommittee's jurisdiction of the
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2011.
SR-222
2:30 p.m.
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
To hold hearings to examine Holocaust era assets after
the Prague conference.
SR-428A
3 p.m.
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and
Integration Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine assessing the effects of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill on states, localities and
the private sector.
SD-342
[[Page 8353]]
3:30 p.m.
Armed Services
Strategic Forces Subcommittee
Closed business meeting to markup those provisions which
fall under the subcommittee's jurisdiction of the
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2011.
SR-222
5 p.m.
Armed Services
Personnel Subcommittee
Closed business meeting to markup those provisions which
fall under the subcommittee's jurisdiction of the
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2011.
SR-222
MAY 26
9:30 a.m.
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
To hold hearings to examine the nominations of Elisabeth
Ann Hagen, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for Food
Safety, and Catherine E. Woteki, of the District of
Columbia, to be Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics, both of the Department of
Agriculture, and Sara Louise Faivre-Davis, of Texas,
Lowell Lee Junkins, of Iowa, and Myles J. Watts, of
Montana, all to be a Member of the Board of Directors
of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Farm
Credit Administration.
SR-328A
Armed Services
SeaPower Subcommittee
Closed business meeting to markup those provisions which
fall under the subcommittee's jurisdiction of the
proposed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal
year 2011.
SR-222
10 a.m.
Indian Affairs
To hold hearings to examine the nomination of Tracie
Stevens, of Washington, to be Chairman of the National
Indian Gaming Commission.
SD-628
2:30 p.m.
Armed Services
Closed business meeting to markup the proposed National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011.
SR-222
MAY 27
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
Closed business meeting to markup the proposed National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011.
SR-222
10 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
To hold hearings to examine building a secure future for
multiemployer pension plans.
SD-430
MAY 28
9:30 a.m.
Armed Services
Closed business meeting to markup the proposed National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011.
SR-222
JUNE 16
9:30 a.m.
Veterans' Affairs
To hold hearings to examine veterans' claims processing,
focusing on if current efforts are working.
SR-418
POSTPONEMENTS
MAY 19
10 a.m.
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Children and Families Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine the state of American
children.
SD-430